I suggest that we can think about postidentity disability politics in a similar way. Identifying into critical disability praxis doesn’t rely on a fixed experience, or a stable identity. We know that the category “disabled” is already so heterogeneous that there has never been a set of defining characteristics capable of encompassing the scope of disabled lives and how to live them. Nor has inhabiting any given disabled identity produced any particular politics. The strand of disability work I follow rejects the idea that what we’re looking for is just a better set of diagnostic or definitive criteria. And we know that the social categories practiced at all these sites are more tangled when we hold in mind other vectors of vulnerability and empowerment, oppression and privilege. Further, we know that disability theory and practice can and often has involved people who don’t identify as disabled, who worry they’re not disabled enough to “count,” who understand themselves to be enabled by systems of oppression but whose lives are shaped and entangled with disabled lovers, friends, comrades, or family, and so on. Identifying into disability praxis means that everyone, however situated, can shape their life’s practice in a way that contributes to self-determination and coproduced freedoms.

— Against Purity by Alexis Shotwell (Page 208)