adjl posted...
A very large number of words have different colloquial meanings from their legal/medical definitions. Colloquially, "disability" amounts largely to "a problem that makes certain parts of my life more difficult" and the "agenda" in question is being compassionate enough to sympathize with that and help accommodate it instead of gatekeeping the concept.
Obviously, the form that compassion takes and the extent to which it is taken will vary from case to case, given practical limitations and the very wide range of things that might cause somebody to struggle with something, but relying on legalese and medical definitions to get out of exercising it in everyday life is pretty much always going to be a dick move. Legal and medical definitions are only relevant when determining access to legally or medically prescribed benefits, and the vast majority of us have nothing to do with that.
She's wrong about alopecia being an autoimmune disorder? She's wrong about it causing degradation of the nails? She's wrong about it causing pain? She's wrong about there being concerns about comorbidities?
All of those things sound like factual claims to me, which means any attempt to claim that "she's completely wrong" needs to be paired with similarly factual information demonstrating those claims to be incorrect (pretty much all of which could come from a few seconds skimming Wikipedia). As some of those reading may have noticed, you provided no such information. What do you think that means for the value of your contribution to this discussion?
Calling it a disability is completely wrong.