Intersectional practice recognises that people experience the world through multiple aspects of identity, circumstance and lived experience.

A person with disability is not defined only by their disability.

They may also be influenced by factors such as:

• age;
• culture;
• language;
• gender;
• sexuality;
• socioeconomic circumstances;
• family responsibilities;
• geographic location;
• education;
• employment;
• access to services.

These factors can combine to influence:

• experiences of disability;
• access to supports;
• interactions with services;
• opportunities for participation;
• experiences of discrimination.

Within assistance animal practice, intersectionality encourages professionals to move beyond a single-issue understanding of disability.

The focus shifts from:

“This person has a disability and needs an assistance animal.”

towards:

“This person has a unique life experience, and their assistance animal partnership exists within a broader social, cultural and environmental context.”

Understanding Intersectionality

Intersectionality was developed within social justice and disability scholarship to describe how different aspects of identity and social position interact.

It recognises that people do not experience barriers in isolated categories.

For example:

A person may experience barriers related to:

• disability;
• rural location;
• financial limitations;
• limited access to healthcare;
• cultural misunderstandings.

These experiences combine and may create additional challenges.

Intersectionality does not mean that every person experiences disadvantage in the same way.

It means professionals must understand the individual context of each person.

Moving Beyond a Single Disability Lens

A common mistake in disability services is assuming that disability is the only relevant factor.

For example:

“This person has autism, therefore their needs are understood.”

However, two autistic people may have very different experiences depending on:

• support networks;
• communication style;
• culture;
• financial circumstances;
• living environment;
• previous experiences with services.

Similarly, two people using assistance animals may have completely different barriers and goals.

Effective practice requires understanding the whole person.

Intersectionality and Access to Assistance Animals

Access to assistance animals is not experienced equally by everyone.

People may face barriers relating to:

• cost;
• geographic location;
• availability of providers;
• wait times;
• assessment requirements;
• public understanding;
• funding systems.

For example:

A person living in a regional or remote area may face additional challenges accessing:

• qualified trainers;
• veterinary services;
• assessments;
• ongoing support.

A person living in a major city may have greater service availability but may face other barriers, such as:

• housing restrictions;
• crowded environments;
• transport challenges.

Intersectional practice recognises that “equal access” does not always mean everyone requires the same support.

Culture and Assistance Animal Practice

Culture can influence:

• views of animals;
• disability;
• independence;
• support services;
• professional relationships.

Professionals should avoid assumptions about how a person or family views assistance animals.

For example:

Some cultures may have specific beliefs about:

• dogs;
• cleanliness;
• animals in the home;
• disability support.

A person may require additional information, discussion or support when considering an assistance animal.

This should be approached respectfully.

The goal is not to judge cultural perspectives.

The goal is to create understanding and support informed decision-making.

Religion and Assistance Animals

Religion may influence how individuals and communities understand animals.

For example:

Some people may have religious beliefs regarding dogs and cleanliness.

However, professionals should recognise that religious beliefs are diverse and individuals may interpret teachings differently.

In public access situations, disability rights and reasonable adjustment considerations still apply.

A respectful approach involves:

• acknowledging different perspectives;
• avoiding assumptions;
• finding practical solutions where possible.

For example:

A person may require an assistance animal for disability support, while another person may experience discomfort around dogs due to personal beliefs.

Good practice considers both needs and seeks reasonable solutions rather than assuming one person’s needs automatically override another’s.

Language, Communication and Accessibility

Intersectional practice recognises that communication barriers may affect a person’s experience with assistance animal services.

People may communicate through:

• spoken language;
• Auslan;
• AAC;
• interpreters;
• written communication;
• alternative methods.

Professionals should ensure that:

• information is accessible;
• assessments are understandable;
• people have opportunities to express preferences;
• communication differences are not mistaken for reduced ability.

A person’s communication style does not determine their capacity to participate in decisions.

Socioeconomic Factors and Assistance Animal Access

Financial circumstances can significantly affect assistance animal pathways.

Costs may include:

• assessment;
• training;
• veterinary care;
• equipment;
• food;
• ongoing maintenance;
• transport.

A person with limited financial resources may experience additional barriers.

For example:

A person may be suitable for an assistance animal but struggle to access:

• private training;
• veterinary specialists;
• suitable housing;
• replacement equipment.

Intersectional practice recognises that suitability alone does not guarantee access.

Systems and supports also influence outcomes.

Housing and Intersectionality

Housing is a significant consideration for assistance animal partnerships.

A person’s housing situation may be influenced by:

• rental availability;
• financial circumstances;
• geographic location;
• household relationships.

For example:

A person may require an assistance dog but live in housing with:

• limited outdoor space;
• restrictive landlords;
• shared accommodation;
• community rules.

Professionals should avoid assumptions based only on housing type.

A small apartment does not automatically mean an assistance dog is unsuitable.

A large property does not automatically mean suitability.

The question is whether the environment can support a safe and sustainable partnership.

Intersectionality and Invisible Disabilities

Many assistance animal handlers have disabilities that are not immediately visible.

Examples include:

• autism;
• psychiatric disabilities;
• neurological conditions;
• chronic illnesses;
• sensory disabilities.

People with invisible disabilities may experience:

• disbelief;
• questioning;
• stigma;
• pressure to justify their needs.

Intersectional practice recognises that a person’s appearance does not determine their level of disability or support needs.

Intersectionality and Multiple Disabilities

Some people experience multiple disabilities.

For example, a person may have:

• autism;
• mobility limitations;
• chronic health conditions;
• sensory differences.

Their assistance animal needs may involve multiple considerations.

Professionals should avoid focusing on one diagnosis in isolation.

Instead, they should consider:

• functional needs;
• daily life;
• environment;
• goals;
• safety;
• wellbeing.

Intersectionality and Family and Support Networks

Many assistance animal partnerships exist within broader relationships.

These may include:

• family members;
• partners;
• carers;
• friends;
• support workers.

These relationships may influence:

• decision-making;
• housing;
• daily routines;
• animal care.

A person-centred and intersectional approach ensures that the individual remains central while recognising the importance of their support network.

For example:

A child with an assistance animal may require adults to support:

• transport;
• veterinary care;
• animal management.

The child’s preferences and participation should still be respected.

Example: Regional Assistance Animal Handler

A person living in a remote area requires an assistance dog.

A simplistic approach may focus only on whether the person meets assistance animal criteria.

An intersectional approach considers:

• limited access to trainers;
• distance to veterinary services;
• transport barriers;
• community attitudes;
• ongoing support options.

The solution may require additional planning and creativity.

Example: Cultural Considerations

A person from a culturally diverse background is considering an assistance dog.

An inappropriate approach may assume:

“Their culture will prevent them from wanting a dog.”

An intersectional approach explores:

• the person’s own beliefs;
• their family context;
• their goals;
• their preferences.

The individual’s lived experience guides the decision.

Intersectionality and Assistance Animal Professionals

Professionals should consider:

• “What factors may influence this person’s experience?”
• “What barriers may exist beyond disability?”
• “What adjustments may improve access?”
• “How can we avoid assumptions?”

This requires:

• curiosity;
• humility;
• reflective practice;
• willingness to learn.

Professionals should recognise that lived experience is a form of expertise.

Avoiding Assumptions and Stereotypes

Intersectional practice requires avoiding assumptions such as:

“All people with this diagnosis need the same support.”

“This person’s background means they will not want an assistance animal.”

“This person looks capable, so they do not need support.”

“This family will manage because they have support.”

Each person’s circumstances are unique.

Good practice starts with listening.

Key Practice Principle

Intersectional assistance animal practice recognises that every partnership exists within a person’s broader life experience.

Disability does not occur in isolation.

The person’s:

identity + environment + culture + relationships + resources + lived experience

all influence their journey.

The goal is not:

“How do we fit this person into an assistance animal system?”

The goal is:

“How do we create assistance animal services that recognise and respond to the full complexity of each person’s life?”

A truly inclusive assistance animal sector is built on:

respect + cultural humility + accessibility + individual understanding + equitable opportunity.