AIBU to find the wording of this question offensive?

It's a bit crap but no one is making you fill it in!

2 of my kids have medical conditions which are deemed to be a disability under the Equality Act but which they don't let stop them studying, working full time, playing sport, travelling (including solo, long haul) etc so don't consider themselves disabled.

they both think the wording is rather clumsy, but not offensive, which seems to support the majority opinion here.

OMG, everything offends people these days!! It’s just getting ridiculous

That's the point of the social model. They weren't barriers for everyone.

That previously, society designed everything for abled people.

Assuming that everything is fine until it doesn't work for one/many person and then saying that they're disabled if it doesn't work for them.

So when society says 'disabled access' a lot of people will say that's society making them disabled when it should have been generally available for all in the first place.

You’re doing well at being a close second.

I think it’s a really weird way of asking. I can see why they’ve done it as they are trying NOT to offend anyone but it does sounds as though having a disability is optional.

I work in marketing and have to put together surveys like this. Agree it is worded awkwardly, you should write to them and offer feedback as it will be appreciated. Marketers are usualy not trying to upset or offend anyone, we are usually nice people doing a job 😁 but can and do sometimes get it wrong.

Nothing offensive here. Unless you think someone disabled is somehow less than you?
The only offensive thing here is … you.

The equality act is legislation to prevent people who qualify as having a disability under the definition of the act from being put at a disadvantage by employers or organisations compared to people who don't.

It's not a definition of disability.

There is no overarching definition of disability.

Doesn't change the fact that if they only do phone calls for deliveries/customer services/etc, I'm still not going to be able to hear them.

That sounds a bit strange. These so called “barriers” would affect everyone equally unless some had different abilities to begin with.

Well, I’m sure anyone who does can complain. It sounds fairly standard wording to me.

But YANBU to find it offensive - anyone can find anything offensive if they like. Doesn’t mean that offence was intended or that anyone need pay them any mind.

@PhilippaGeorgiou I assumed you were objecting to the term impairment as that is often something people don’t like. I’ve already said it mixes different concepts.

Then you haven't followed. The question asked is Do you identify as someone with an impairment or health condition? IF SO, choose from the list etc...

If my answer is no, it doesn't matter what is on the list to tick, I've moved on. I may have a condition that you think is represented in the options, but so what? I've already answered no and clicked through.

The social model if disability is that people aren't disabled but that society puts barriers in place that create a disability.

So some people with what society would say are disabilities identity as such and some don't.

It's actually really inclusive language.

I just don’t agree with the relevance of your point 🤷🏻‍♀️
If you have one of the conditions listed it makes zero difference whether you consider it a disability or a blessing.
Presumably, they want to know if you have it, not how you feel about it?

An impairment is not the same thing as a disability - to be a disability the "impairment" must meet threshold criteria. You can have an "impairment" and not have a disability. The term impairment in itself has no meaning - it means what you want it to mean, as Alice said. The information that Argos are therefore collecting has, in itself no meaningful purpose. It cannot demonstrate compliance with the Act (if that is what they are trying to achieve) because it doesn't use the same terms.

That said, people are different. Some may not find it offensively worded. I do. So I would have ticked "Other" on account of my struggle to tolerate idiots.

I do have a few medical conditions which could come under a few of those categories but it wouldn't occur to me to find this question or its wording offensive.

Slightly clumsy maybe, but not offensive. In fact, it probably wouldn't even register on my radar much.

The social model of disability is that no-one has disabilities but that society puts barriers in place which create a disability.

Not everyone has to agree with that.

But I know the deaf 'culture' movement for e.g doesn't use words like loss or impairment as that suggests there is something 'wrong' with not hearing when many people don't consider themselves to be intrinsically disabled but that society puts barriers in place to create that.

Why do you say they won't use it to improve services? That will be precisely the purpose of collecting it (whether they do or not is of course another matter). Surveys show up broad trends which can then be investigated. They don't want chapter and verse on everyone at this point.

It's a customer satisfaction survey. If people who identify with one of those conditions consistently mark them down, they can look to address it.

This isn't one of those things.

If someone doesn't feel disabled by a condition, it's not up to them to advocate for the needs of those who do. It's not ok to assign that task to them.

You can't order someone to feel how you think they should about themselves.

Right, but only one considers themselves disabled by it.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been on that point?

"Do you identity..." Was originally language used for disability to allow people to identify out of the categorisation. People who could fall into the disabled category might opt out. Perhaps their condition fluctuates or is under control with treatment, perhaps they feel that the IBD that means being disabled in a toilet sense doesn't align with being disabled when talking about lifts and wheelchair access. It allows disabled people to contextualise their needs.

The fact it was appropriated and misused to allow people to identify into categories they didn't belong in, was the problem, not the language itself.

And this I do find offensive and why I hate ‘identify as' <insert disability> I doesn’t mean you have been proven to have it.

You may have a visible disability and not feel disabled, but it doesn’t mean the workplace shouldn’t make necessary adjustments. Someone else may need them and not feel able to ask in that case.

Someone things just have to be black and white.