Here's a thought experiment: suppose service animals did not exist. In this hypothetical world, do you suppose that users of ESAs would be able to successfully

Here's a thought experiment: suppose service animals did not exist. In this hypothetical world, do you suppose that users of ESAs would be able to successfully campaign for exemptions and rules for their animals that parallel the exemptions given to service animals? I think that is highly unlikely. Service animals opened the door. And all ESAs had to do was pry it a little bit more. The propagation of ESAs rides on the average person's ignorance about the distinction between the two and a reluctance to inquire about an animal's status out of fear of prying, accusations of hostility, and simple shyness. I know some people criticize the slippery-slope fallacy (their words) but it's a real thing. And once you let someone have an exemption, suddenly you realize there are sound arguments for just expanding the rules a little bit more. No one wants to be the person telling someone 'No, you're not disabled'. It's uncomfortable, and seems harsh and unsympathetic. The problem with these accommodations is that they aren't just a remedy for a disability, but are actually advantages. Giving students unlimited time on an exam incentivizes people to exaggerate symptoms. So why don't we have this issue with ramps, door openers, and wide bathroom stalls? Well, the reason is that they are available to everyone--no one cares if you walk up the ramp or open the door with the button. They are required per the disability regulations, but in effect offered to everyone. And most people decline to use them because the don't give them an advantage. The solution is simple--if someone requires it, them give it to everyone. If some people require unlimited time on the exam, then get rid of timed exams. If someone can bring a dog on the airplane, then anyone can.