A campaign based on what some call "ableism" condemns the plan by a women to play Richard III. Peculiarly, not because of a gender difference, but because she is not "disabled".

Can a non-disabled 21th-century actor properly play a powerful but physically disabled 15th-century noble? Can a disabled 21th-century actor properly play a powerful non-disabled 15th-century noble? I think we can only answer, "Maybe — try and we'll see."

This production raises a similar issue about gender: Can a 21th-century woman play a 15th-century male king? Is it reasonable for her to try? Can a 21th-century man play a 15th-century reigning queen? Is it reasonable for him to try? I think we can only answer, "Maybe — try and we'll see."

Interestingly, the article does not even mention that question. It accepts that a woman can play a male character. If society accepts that, why object? Try it, and we'll judge your acting ability. So why not do the same for disability?

The dispute may be based on confusion about the 15-th century facts. Was Richard III "disabled" as we understand the term? I can't be certain but it seems that he was not.

He had scoliosis, but a doctor says this would not have been apparent in the court because clothing could hide it.

Whatever pain or inconvenience scoliosis caused him, it did not interfere with his physical activities. He could ride a horse in battle, wield a sword in battle, and lead an army to victory. He impressed people through success in vigosous sports.

My conclusion is that he was not disabled in any practical sense.

I think that disabled actors will be better off if they are accepted for playing any and all roles, rather than guaranteed all the disabled characters' roles.