Nancy Hensen sets u p the arguments well in her paer, "Remapping the Medical Terrain on Our Terms."
This section can serve as an analysis of why Universal Design is still so essential:
The boundaries between the community, the individual and thebody are fluid although they are often presented as fixed andunchanging. Certain bodies have yet to "belong".People with disabilities would seem to get caught up in a cycleof limited social expectation on the part of the able-bodiedmainstream, perhaps fuelled by a combination of factorsranging from lack of exposure to people with disabilitiesin regular social situations to projected discomfort levelsarising from the assumed helplessness regularly associatedwith varying levels of physicality. As a result, people withdisabilities may spend significant amounts of time and energynegotiating their way through public spaces.
Here she addresses embodiment and identity:
The presence of people with disabilitieschallenges the entrenched social ideals of what is theacceptable adult body. In many ways people with disabilitiesare viewed as not fully human by society at large, althoughthis form of dysfunctional reductionism is rarely perceivedor acknowledged within the collective social consciousness.Disability is not readily subsumed as part of identity inthe same manner as gender, ethnicity, and sexuality havebeen. A "normal body" (whatever it may be) is equatedwith a "normal" life although the parameters of the conceptare not clearly defined. Social understanding of disabilityand impairment seems to be one-dimensional. Manytimes the level of engagement would seem to be evaluatedin unsophisticated ways, namely in terms of the individual'sapparent dysfunction.
Source: Aporia Vol.1, Numéro 3/Vol.1, Issue 3