Access Gatekeeping
Requiring a person to conform to arbitrary or inappropriate standards to receive access — such as performing “helplessness” or agreeing not to disclose mistreatment.
When “accessibility” is weaponised to extract compliance, silence voices, or create dependency, it becomes a tool of harm — not support. This glossary identifies how systems misuse inclusive frameworks to mask control.
Requiring a person to conform to arbitrary or inappropriate standards to receive access — such as performing “helplessness” or agreeing not to disclose mistreatment.
When programs pretend to centre disability or trauma-informed leadership but retain control, edit lived experience, and deny genuine co-design or authorship.
When systems rely on written policies to demonstrate “support” but refuse to enforce those policies meaningfully when abuse or discrimination occurs.
Offering surface-level inclusion for show (e.g. diverse images or “voice of lived experience” panels) without transferring actual power, decision-making, or compensation.
Support that is only offered to those who remain passive or non-critical. Speaking out leads to exclusion, withheld services, or reputational retaliation.