Sounds like you misunderstood the point of the article. Not surprising, since it's written as a cryptic poem.
The question is meant more as a metaphor for a larger problem american culture (in particular) has with lumping a lot of very different things together as "disabilities" and the problems that stem from doing that.
Like the author said, if a (public) building is physically inaccessible by a significant subset of the population then the building design is the thing that needs attention and reconsideration not the people.
In other words, we should put more effort into designing systems and things that accommodate differences rather than asking people to identify with the poorly defined and highly contextual term "disabled" as if that's a solution to anything.
That's closer to the point of the article, despite going over and over the question for the sake of poetry.
The question is meant more as a metaphor for a larger problem american culture (in particular) has with lumping a lot of very different things together as "disabilities" and the problems that stem from doing that.
Like the author said, if a (public) building is physically inaccessible by a significant subset of the population then the building design is the thing that needs attention and reconsideration not the people.
In other words, we should put more effort into designing systems and things that accommodate differences rather than asking people to identify with the poorly defined and highly contextual term "disabled" as if that's a solution to anything.
That's closer to the point of the article, despite going over and over the question for the sake of poetry.