Shallan's shift in direction.

[Pathfinder]

2 minutes ago, Harbour said:

In before she will realize it was her fourth personality who killed Ialai and she now has the touch of death.

Also she was Ialai's spy near Dalinar, she just didnt realize that.

Lol, I like the twist. 

[Karger]

I prefer a constant uncertainty of weather she killed her or not.  It would be more in keeping with the Lightweaver mythos.  No way to know for sure no way to verify, always a possibility depending on how you see it.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Karger

[Calderis]

3 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

I think regardless the ultimate destination, the latest chapter released validates that all is not rosey currently and despite Shallan/Veil/Radiant's many comments that "things are better now" and "in balance", Shallan is still an unreliable narrator. I think a downward spiral is still occurring and very much on the table. But I totally respect and understand that others think differently. 

edit: just in case, what I am referring to is the point where Shallan panicked being unsure whether she killed Ialai or not. I think there is still potential for additional trauma occurring that could result in additional alters forming. Which as per the DSMV, is still possible.

I never said everything is rosy. And in her state it's perfectly natural to have doubts. 

What struck me most about this chapter, is that Veil didn't try to take control and just kill Ialai. There was no confrontation there beyond some slight internal debate in which even Veil decided Ialai shouldn't die. They are working together, even reaching point of unison that the narrative intentionally referred to them as "The Three." 

This chapter still went much like I suspected it would in spite of the lessened level of internal conflict between them. It showed both the stability and structure of the plural system, while simultaneously showing the doubts that they have in that stability from before once Ialai died.

My opinion of the direction of things was strengthened by this chapter.

Edit: to be clear. I'm trying to say that she is currently stable, but the doubts about things are setup for later when she will have the breakdown that pushes her into another spiral. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Calderis

[Pathfinder]

15 minutes ago, Calderis said:

I never said everything is rosy.

Sorry, didn't mean to say you were, that is why I didn't tag anyone in particular. The discussion at one point was whether Shallan was spiraling down or not, so I just mentioned the latest chapter in that regard.

Also wasn't intending to say that meant anything you said about the ultimate destination was incorrect. Which is why I said "regardless the ultimate destination" (integration or not).

 

Quote

And in her state it's perfectly natural to have doubts. 

What struck me most about this chapter, is that Veil didn't try to take control and just kill Ialai. There was no confrontation there beyond some slight internal debate in which even Veil decided Ialai shouldn't die. They are working together, even reaching point of unison that the narrative intentionally referred to them as "The Three." 

This chapter still went much like I suspected it would in spite of the lessened level of internal conflict between them. It showed both the stability and structure of the plural system, while simultaneously showing the doubts that they have in that stability from before once Ialai died. 

My opinion of the direction of things was strengthened by this chapter. 

Personally I do not see the existence or lack there of, of conflict between alters as particularly indicative as to whether or not Shallan is progressing in a positive direction. Especially if the belief is that non-integration can be a successful end game by not leading to subsequent dissociation. The purpose of alters as per the document that has been referenced multiple times throughout this thread, is the assistance in handling tasks that the original feels they are unable to. If the original feels the alters are unable to handle the existing trauma, or additional trauma, then the alters are not serving their purpose, and can result in the original creating more alters. The scene mentioned comes off to me as Shallan almost dissociating further, which illustrates to me the fragility of the current paradigm. If Shallan can question what she does at any moment despite the perceived "harmony" between her two alters, then how will she handle further upset or trauma during a literal world war? 

To be clear all I said is not saying non-integration is an unacceptable goal. As far as I am concerned, Shallan can remain the three for the entirety of her life and be fine. But that is predicated on the three successfully performing the reason for their existence. I think as of Chapter 7, that success is precarious. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Calderis]

Going to go and edit this into the main post in just a sec. 

Peter confirmed that the use of "The Three" as a singular was intentional 

Quote

Adarain

Quick grammar question for /u/peterahlstrom: In the sentence 'Instead, the Three dismissed her Blade", shouldn’t that probably be "their Blade" ? Or is it a deliberate decision to refer to the Three in the singular?

Peter Ahlstrom

It's deliberate.

General Reddit 2020 (Jan. 1, 2020)

This fits with a plural system being named. 

[Harbour]

Well, this confirms that all three personalities are one character, and not some separate entities.

[jamskinner]

On 8/17/2020 at 11:15 PM, Calderis said:

As she was in OB? No it wasn't. How she seems in these opening chapters? I don't see why not. 

I am kind of saying what you seem to think I am and am also saying nothing of the sort. Let me explain. 

As to mental health in general, I think it is heavily stigmatized to a point that any abnormality is viewed harshly enough that many people are frightened to even admit that they may have an issue to themselves. And this leads to the idea of "different is bad" that I was talking about. 

It's not that "no mental condition is unhealthy." It's that any mental condition can be unhealthy but they do not have to be. There's a reason I brought up earlier in the thread, the idea of the DSM diagnosis criteria and in many many cases "significant impairment" being a requirement of diagnosis. You can have symptoms of schizophrenia, but be functional and unimpaired and not qualify for a diagnosis. You can have Sociopathic traits and be functional and not qualify for a diagnosis. You can be plural, and be functional, and healthy and happy. 

Any mental condition can be a problem. My complaint comes from the insistence that in order to be "healthy" the condition must be eliminated. Because in the world of human psychology that is exceedingly rare. 

 

 Do you think shallan would rather have DID or not have the condition?  I strongly believe most people would rather not have the mental health problems they do.  Can they live with them and function? Sure.  But that does not mean those conditions are healthy.  

I have anxiety issues.  I absolutely wish I did not have that problem.  Can I live with them.  Sure, but it does cause issues in my life. And in no way does having a mental health condition mean someone is bad or unworthy.  

I also think by not viewing mental health issues as unhealthy people may be less inclined to actually get help with them.  If you have heart disease should you ignore it?  Can you function normally with it?  

[Greywatch]

20 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

I also think by not viewing mental health issues as unhealthy people may be less inclined to actually get help with them.  If you have heart disease should you ignore it?  Can you function normally with it?  

I don't think comparing a dissociative disorder borne of childhood trauma to heart disease is actually a viable example. It doesn't track.

[Calderis]

47 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

 Do you think shallan would rather have DID or not have the condition?  I strongly believe most people would rather not have the mental health problems they do.  Can they live with them and function? Sure.  But that does not mean those conditions are healthy.  

I have anxiety issues.  I absolutely wish I did not have that problem.  Can I live with them.  Sure, but it does cause issues in my life. And in no way does having a mental health condition mean someone is bad or unworthy.  

I also think by not viewing mental health issues as unhealthy people may be less inclined to actually get help with them.  If you have heart disease should you ignore it?  Can you function normally with it?  

I have pretty severe depression. I understand not wanting an issue despite living with it and coping, and reaching a place of equilibrium. 

But Brandon approaches mental illness in a way that attempts to present it as realistic. I'm not going to pretend I know what Shallan wants, but that's honestly not even relevant. Mental disorders do not care what you want. 

My fear here, and why I honestly hope that Shallan does not reintigrate, is that even if she did she would still have a dissociative disorder. There would always be a risk of relapse and alters. It would not be gone.

That isn't how most readers would take it though. They would see it as Shallan was fixed. That her problem was gone and it's happily ever after. Which I'm certain for many would be a far more comfortable idea. It's just not the way mental health works.

[+Bliev]

20 hours ago, Calderis said:

I never said everything is rosy. And in her state it's perfectly natural to have doubts. 

What struck me most about this chapter, is that Veil didn't try to take control and just kill Ialai. There was no confrontation there beyond some slight internal debate in which even Veil decided Ialai shouldn't die. They are working together, even reaching point of unison that the narrative intentionally referred to them as "The Three." 

This chapter still went much like I suspected it would in spite of the lessened level of internal conflict between them. It showed both the stability and structure of the plural system, while simultaneously showing the doubts that they have in that stability from before once Ialai died.

My opinion of the direction of things was strengthened by this chapter.

Edit: to be clear. I'm trying to say that she is currently stable, but the doubts about things are setup for later when she will have the breakdown that pushes her into another spiral. 

I concur with this. I think we're seeing stability and cooperation, but not growth. And Shallan is still insecure and anxious (which aligns with Veil's hints about how they need to "deal" with their past more), and doubts her own goodness and worthiness. But she doesn't run from that anxiety. She tries to deal with it directly and logically, which is an improvement over WOR and OB Shallan, for whom such doubt would have been the beginning of further disassociation, either by alter-standards, or just by denial and "acting" her role to avoid it. She's clearly not well. But I don't think her wellness is contingent upon looking "normal". I think, per your comments, wellness for Shallan means functionality and peace, not looking or thinking like everyone else. 

I really appreciate how you keep contextualizing how mental health stigma (and disability stigma in general) colors our interpretation of these characters. We want them to be "well" which codes as "normal". But you can be functional and not "typical". And our goals here (and in the real world) often don't track with people's lived experiences. When you listen, for instance, to autistic adults who decry certain therapies as attempts to change them in ways that ignore their autonomy and value, or to the Deaf community who have fought for distinctive identities and experiences throughout the years--these are complex issues that deserve our respect. I am glad that Brandon is giving us difficult things to consider while providing us with his normal action-packed plot movement. Because as much as we joke that we just want "Kaladin to be happy", well, guess what, he's never going to just be "happy". But he can be "well" in a way that keeps him functional and valued and important, without being "healed". It's just more realistic to me, and I appreciate it too. And he will still have bad days! And that's okay too.

[Calderis]

Exactly, @Bliev.

The calls for Kaladin to "get over it" infuriate me because I relate to his struggles so so much. 

I understand people want the best for him, and Shallan, and all of the characters they love... But I think presenting "the best" in a way that fits what readers want instead of a way that represents something that is actually healthy for people who deal with these issues is harmful and supports a culture that heavily stigmatizes mental health. 

I'm happy with the way Brandon has chosen to do things, and I expect with his research and specific choice to include a beta reader with DID means that he is going to take Shallan in a direction that is going to make a lot of people uncomfortable and that that is intentional and raises awareness of a real issue. 

[jamskinner]

2 hours ago, Calderis said:

I have pretty severe depression. I understand not wanting an issue despite living with it and coping, and reaching a place of equilibrium. 

But Brandon approaches mental illness in a way that attempts to present it as realistic. I'm not going to pretend I know what Shallan wants, but that's honestly not even relevant. Mental disorders do not care what you want. 

My fear here, and why I honestly hope that Shallan does not reintigrate, is that even if she did she would still have a dissociative disorder. There would always be a risk of relapse and alters. It would not be gone.

That isn't how most readers would take it though. They would see it as Shallan was fixed. That her problem was gone and it's happily ever after. Which I'm certain for many would be a far more comfortable idea. It's just not the way mental health works.

And I would disagree.  I would hope she could be cured.  This may not be realistic or even possible.  Either way like I originally said I still believe it is unhealthy.  It interferes with life.  But whether the person is "fixed" or not does not change a persons worth or value.

 

2 hours ago, Greywatch said:

I don't think comparing a dissociative disorder borne of childhood trauma to heart disease is actually a viable example. It doesn't track.

Why not?  They are both health problems.  They both interfere with life.  They both can be treated to a degree depending on the severity of each.  Obviously we cant at this time repair a damaged heart, but lifestyle changes and medicine can help.  I don't know the treatments for DID besides therapy.  I would assume some medicine maybe helpful in some cases as well.

 

[Greywatch]

7 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

Why not?  They are both health problems.  They both interfere with life.  They both can be treated to a degree depending on the severity of each.  Obviously we cant at this time repair a damaged heart, but lifestyle changes and medicine can help.  I don't know the treatments for DID besides therapy.  I would assume some medicine maybe helpful in some cases as well.

Treating it does not mean it goes away. Mental disorders are treated differently from physical health issues. Some mental disorders are for life. Shallan is always going to have her childhood trauma, and she will always be recovering from it. What her recovery will look like ten, twenty, fifty years down the line will be different from what it looks like now, but you don't heal from trauma as if it was a broken bone, healed and forgotten about.

[jamskinner]

17 minutes ago, Greywatch said:

Treating it does not mean it goes away. Mental disorders are treated differently from physical health issues. Some mental disorders are for life. Shallan is always going to have her childhood trauma, and she will always be recovering from it. What her recovery will look like ten, twenty, fifty years down the line will be different from what it looks like now, but you don't heal from trauma as if it was a broken bone, healed and forgotten about.

Treatment isn't only for cures.  You cant cure heart disease yet it is still important to treat it.  Same with mental health problems.  Otherwise, why have therapists?  And bringing up broken bones is irrelevant.  Broken bones mend.  Hearts don't.

[Greywatch]

1 minute ago, jamskinner said:

Treatment isn't only for cures.  You cant cure heart disease yet it is still important to treat it.  Same with mental health problems.  Otherwise, why have therapists?  And bringing up broken bones is irrelevant.  Broken bones mend.  Hearts don't.

Yes, I'm talking about even with therapy and treatments, disorders don't go away.

[Calderis]

1 hour ago, Greywatch said:

Yes, I'm talking about even with therapy and treatments, disorders don't go away.

Exactly this. 

@jamskinner this is my exact issue here. This very belief that "it would still be unhealthy."

What this says to many patients, of various mental health issues, is that they can never be healthy. You go in and have therapy, you try different meds, you deal and struggle and reach a point that the world says you aren't healthy, even though you are stable and functional and happy (and in some cases, learn to see the way your brain functions as an advantage over "normal" people), and plateau... And that's it. That's life forever after. Highs and lows and struggles... And you'll never be "normal" or "healthy" in the eyes of the majority no matter how well you function, or how happy you are, or how far you've come. 

It's a stigma that needs to die because it is actively harmful to people who have gone through struggles that a "normal" person can't even begin to understand.

People disagreeing that Shallan can maintain her personas and be healthy is exactly why it should happen. 

[+Child of Hodor]

Why does Shallan stir such controversy in the fandom? Between the love triangle and the persona triangle her character creates strong reactions in a lot of directions. 

Is it that she’s in the middle of multiple triangles (Jasnah - Ghostbloods is another) and being pulled many different ways that causes people to feel wildly different? 

This not a comment on anyone in this thread or meant to imply that anyone’s reaction is the “wrong” one.  

[jamskinner]

6 hours ago, Greywatch said:

Yes, I'm talking about even with therapy and treatments, disorders don't go away.

And neither does heart damage after a heart attack. Hence the analogy.  I think we should end the back and forth.

 

4 hours ago, Calderis said:

Exactly this. 

@jamskinner this is my exact issue here. This very belief that "it would still be unhealthy."

What this says to many patients, of various mental health issues, is that they can never be healthy. You go in and have therapy, you try different meds, you deal and struggle and reach a point that the world says you aren't healthy, even though you are stable and functional and happy (and in some cases, learn to see the way your brain functions as an advantage over "normal" people), and plateau... And that's it. That's life forever after. Highs and lows and struggles... And you'll never be "normal" or "healthy" in the eyes of the majority no matter how well you function, or how happy you are, or how far you've come. 

It's a stigma that needs to die because it is actively harmful to people who have gone through struggles that a "normal" person can't even begin to understand.

People disagreeing that Shallan can maintain her personas and be healthy is exactly why it should happen. 

So the story should be dictated on social justice and not just a good story?  How boring. 

An all seriousness I think you are equating unhealthy with invaluable or something similar.  Or maybe being unhealthy is something the person has brought on themselves.  I have said multiple times now that is not what I'm saying.  I am only saying mental illness is a real health problem just like any other.  And if we ignore it and say "nothing to see here" we are exasperating the problem.  I think you see it as a social justice problem.  That the person doesn't need to be fixed, society does.  I think that would only lead to disappointment.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by jamskinner

[Calderis]

1 minute ago, jamskinner said:

So the story should be dictated on social justice and not just a good story?  How boring. 

An all seriousness I think you are equating unhealthy with invaluable or something similar.  Or maybe being unhealthy is something the person has brought on themselves.  I have said multiple times now that is not what I'm saying.  I am only saying mental illness is a real health problem just like any other.  And if we ignore it and say "nothing to see here" we are exasperating the problem.  I think you see it as a social justice problem.  That the person doesn't need to be fixed, society does.  I think that would only lead to disappointment.

That... Completely misses my point? No its not "social justice" in the derogatory sense that that term is used. Clearly mental health is a real issue and should be treated as such. 

But painting a realistic picture of probable outcomes and educating people on what those are is far preferable than continuing a stigma that makes these conditions worse. So that the majority can feel "comfortable" because that's all that this is about. 

In your heart disease example, someone can be treated and manage their symptoms and have everything under control and are treated by everyone as if they're healthy. 

If someone Is like Shallan, or has tourettes, or countless other conditions and has that managed and under control they will likely still have symptoms. 

The difference isn't one of level of recovery. It's that in the case of the heart patient, people can forget that the person has a problem. And that's it. The difference can't be forgotten when there are abnormal behaviors in front of their face, so it makes people uncomfortable. 

Fighting that stigma and discomfort helps everyone have happier and healthier lives because it destroys the fears that keeps people from seeking treatment and reaching the point of breakdown, or worse suicide, in the first place.

And frankly, all mental health advocacy aside, I fail to see how the ending that isn't the one everyone seems to expect is the "boring" or less interesting one. 

[jamskinner]

4 minutes ago, Calderis said:

That... Completely misses my point? No its not "social justice" in the derogatory sense that that term is used. Clearly mental health is a real issue and should be treated as such. 

But painting a realistic picture of probable outcomes and educating people on what those are is far preferable than continuing a stigma that makes these conditions worse. So that the majority can feel "comfortable" because that's all that this is about. 

In your heart disease example, someone can be treated and manage their symptoms and have everything under control and are treated by everyone as if they're healthy. 

If someone Is like Shallan, or has tourettes, or countless other conditions and has that managed and under control they will likely still have symptoms. 

The difference isn't one of level of recovery. It's that in the case of the heart patient, people can forget that the person has a problem. And that's it. The difference can't be forgotten when there are abnormal behaviors in front of their face, so it makes people uncomfortable. 

Fighting that stigma and discomfort helps everyone have happier and healthier lives because it destroys the fears that keeps people from seeking treatment and reaching the point of breakdown, or worse suicide, in the first place.

And frankly, all mental health advocacy aside, I fail to see how the ending that isn't the one everyone seems to expect is the "boring" or less interesting one. 

it boring because it is predictable.  It is formulaic.  

As for the other you say it isn't social justice and then you say it is. I am going to assume what you keep saying is what you actually mean. 

I also don't see how using the same term as the heart attack patient and the mental health patient is problematic. It is consistent and accurate.  And I don't see anyone being happier because society changes their views.  In my opinion and experience, changing my own outlook is the best method of happiness, not trying to change everyone else.

And with that I'm argued out.

[Calderis]

8 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

it boring because it is predictable. It is formulaic.

Which is why everyone expects reintegratation. Because that's not formulaic or predictable. Gotcha. 

8 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

As for the other you say it isn't social justice and then you say it is. I am going to assume what you keep saying is what you actually mean. 

I have said exactly what I mean the whole time. What I disagree with is the use of the term "social justice" as a means to invalidate differing opinion. 

8 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

I also don't see how using the same term as the heart attack patient and the mental health patient is problematic. It is consistent and accurate.  And I don't see anyone being happier because society changes their views.  In my opinion and experience, changing my own outlook is the best method of happiness, not trying to change everyone else.

I won't bury my head in the sand and pretend that everything is wonderful when a societal change can benefit many. The ability to ignore that is the ability to say "this doesn't effect me, so business as usual."

8 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

And with that I'm argued out.

It's been fun. 

Edited August 20, 2020 by Calderis

[Jofwu]

I've come around on this somewhat.

I do feel like reintegration was "promised" by Oathbringer. Certainly not as strongly as something like "Kaladin will speak his 4th Ideal", but I DO feel like it was strongly suggested as the direction the story would go. A big piece of that was because I felt Shallan was using the personas in unhealthy ways. I understand she's dealing with a lot of trauma and needs some time to cope. Obviously I want her to recover though, so I couldn't help but root for her to move on to a place that she doesn't NEED the personas to cope.

I definitely didn't consider the possibility that she could learn to cope WITHOUT using the personas. Because the two came hand in hand. She had relatively little problem adjusting to the truth of her father's death. She invented Veil as a character to play, but didn't develop or show signs of DID until after the truth about her mother. So Oathbringer started and BAM, Shallan invents Radiant as well and suddenly is using both personas as a coping mechanism. My simple feeling was, "okay, I ultimately want her to make peace with the past, start recovering, and no longer need these coping mechanisms."

The possibility of Shallan making peace with the past BUT still having DID isn't something I considered, but it's definitely more valid than I gave it credit. The only issue I have with this approach is that it would bother me that we didn't see all of the between-OB-and-RoW development. Feels like an important piece of her story to leave out.

[Rainier]

23 hours ago, Calderis said:

People disagreeing that Shallan can maintain her personas and be healthy is exactly why it should happen. 

Go ahead and finish your thought, because you've left it half-formed. Why is my disagreement the reason why it needs to happen? [removed by moderator]

23 hours ago, Calderis said:

And you'll never be "normal" or "healthy" in the eyes of the majority no matter how well you function, or how happy you are, or how far you've come. 

Most of us are born with two legs. Some small few are not. Some others lose all or parts of one or both. Maybe with prosthetics the legless can achieve mobility, but there's still a difference. Two legs is normal, less than two legs is not. No matter how well you get around, in the eyes of the majority you'll still have less than two legs, and thus not normal.

I want Shallan to be cured. Actually cured, as in no more multiple personalities, no more confusion and forgetfulness and black-outs. The same way Lopen regrew his arm, or Renarin healed his vision, I want to see Shallan cured of her ailment so she can live less crippled by it. I want to see her shed her handicap, the same way I want Kaladin to shed his depression and Dalinar to shed his alcoholism. Shallan's multiple personalities should serve the story, and not the other way around. For this upcoming book, it means leading her in a downward spiral as she loses control.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Chaos
Removed rude phrasing

[Calderis]

16 minutes ago, Rainier said:

I want to see her shed her handicap, the same way I want Kaladin to shed his depression and Dalinar to shed his alcoholism. Shallan's multiple personalities should serve the story, and not the other way around. For this upcoming book, it means leading her in a downward spiral as she loses control.

And Brandon's view of mental health explicitly does not work that way. 

Kaladin is a character with depression as a part of his character meant to show it as just a part of his character. It won't be "fixed." 

This is long, so I'll quote the relevant portion. 

https://wob.coppermind.net/events/2/#e184

Quote

PallonianFire

So it wouldn't really be-- the Shard wouldn't be able to heal--

Brandon Sanderson

Well, the Shard-- Like, here's the thing we have to get at with this, what we're getting at, which is the question of, for instance, is Kaladin's depression a flaw in him that needs to be healed? And that is a question for philosophers. There are certainly people, cosmere and outside the cosmere, that say "Yes, this needs to be healed" and things like this. But what about somebody who's-- say, someone who is autistic, and their mind just works in a different way, and this way allows a certain bond to happen that couldn't otherwise happen? Is that a flaw, or is that-- is it a bug or a feature, to speak in coding terms? Is what's up with Kaladin a bug or a feature? I know that my wife would probably get rid of her depression if she could, but it's also been fundamental in how she sees the world and who she is, would that change her into a different person? And things like this. So, I want you when you discuss this, to be very careful about treating mental illness as a flaw as opposed to an aspect of a human personality that allows certain different things to happen. Does that make sense? *applause*

I don't see why this would be treated any differently. 

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Jofwu said:

I definitely didn't consider the possibility that she could learn to cope WITHOUT using the personas. Because the two came hand in hand. She had relatively little problem adjusting to the truth of her father's death. She invented Veil as a character to play, but didn't develop or show signs of DID until after the truth about her mother. So Oathbringer started and BAM, Shallan invents Radiant as well and suddenly is using both personas as a coping mechanism. My simple feeling was, "okay, I ultimately want her to make peace with the past, start recovering, and no longer need these coping mechanisms."

So I have seen this around a lot. That Shallan's DID is a new thing that she developed recently. Has anyone suggested or considered that maybe Shallan has had DID since she was a child? (genuine question, not being snarky or sarcastic). There is a lot about her childhood we do not know. All we do know if she bonded when she was young and was able to use illusions. Potentially Shallan had DID since she was a child, but by blocking out her memories, the necessity of the alters was no longer present and thereby were not exhibited. Once she was confronted with the trauma once more, the need for alters arose once more, and she formed new ones to function in a capacity at her advanced age. Just a thought. 

19 minutes ago, Rainier said:

Most of us are born with two legs. Some small few are not. Some others lose all or parts of one or both. Maybe with prosthetics the legless can achieve mobility, but there's still a difference. Two legs is normal, less than two legs is not. No matter how well you get around, in the eyes of the majority you'll still have less than two legs, and thus not normal.

Handicap people have been referred to as differently abled, and in many cases are more abled than those without said handicap. I believe if we are to extend this example to its full conclusion, then it would be the equivalency of saying there is something wrong with a person missing a leg even though they have the capacity to function successfully in life no different than someone with both legs.