'Transablism' is now a thing?!

Yes society treats disabled people differently. The loudest most articulate voices that come from a place of privilege will always be more likely to be listened to.
Someone whose disability meant they would once have been permanently institutionalised, and who face a higher incidence of violence and death from the police, might be understandably ruffled that their status has been appropriated to access benefits created for them. They are also more likely to be cautious than those whose disability would not have seen them locked up and mistreated.

As soon as ruling authorities accept "I identify as" rather than actual reality - then we all have a problem.

Also I'll say it again, because I think it's relevant. There is already a sizable transabled community (currently called pension cheats or worksafe fiddlers or whatever) who would weaponise the language to assert their right to inclusion, and even assert their privilege over others.
There is the potential there.

Also I think belittling people who don't have the understanding of identity politics phrases is akin to telling uneducated or limited English speaking women to suck it up if they don't know what a cervix-haver is.

But if you queer the language, then we will never have any evidence. That is the point I am valiantly trying to make.
If we say Twaw, then there will never be evidence of men who identify as women influencing rape statistics, or public toilet assaults.
There are plenty of examples where the "identify as" language is making it impossible to discern the extent of a demographic. The Scottish transgender survey showing over 50% of trans people identifying as disabled is an example. How can we trust that statistic now? It is simply not reliable.
There are plenty of individuals identifying as disabled. Of course with individuals it is not appropriate to question their veracity (even when it's Lily Madigan) , therefore even further normalising the "identify as" paradigm.

I have read the thread.

I speak as the mother of a disabled child. Who died of complications arising from his condition, after some years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.

But now that queer theory is merrily fucking up the definitions of "woman" and "man" and "female" and "male"; what next, eh?

Screw up the accepted definition of "disabled", "disability"; using the language of trans?

This smells to me like "queering", again.

Seen several red flags on this thread already.

I dislike the "do you identify as/do you consider yourself to be disabled" question. I answer No because that seems the 'correct' answers for me to those specific questions.

However if the question is 'might you need us to make any reasonable adjustments to accommodate any condition or disability to make things fully accessible for you' then the answer would be Yes as I am on the autistism spectrum and whilst 90% of the time I manage fine, sometimes things get too much and I need some kind of adjustment. I bloody don't identify as anything though, and I consider myself me. I believe as a pp mentioned, there are some people who are deaf and similarly don't consider themselves disabled but rather thar their first language is sign language.

I do agree MsMaisel, diagnosis is not a straight forward process for a number of conditions. There does need to be some gatekeeping, otherwise systems will be abused, however, access to assessment and diagnosis need to be improved to ensure that people don't miss out.

And what I am talking about is the risk, and the potential, for the same thing to happen to disabled spaces.

Unless I'm missing something, all that has actually happened is that MrsMaisel has explained why many disabled people prefer the phrase "identify as disabled", and pointed out that disabled people spend a lot of time having to listen to the whole people-faking-disability-for-benefits shit already. Especially those of us with invisible disabilities, who've been at the receiving end of those assumptions.

It is unfortunate that your partner didn't have that part of the form explained, so an informed choice could have been made. But the answer is not to get rid of that phrasing.

I also think the accusations aimed at the disability activist community are unneccessary, especially as you've already shown you've never engaged with that community (if you had you'd already know why "identify as disabled" is the preferred choice).

Clearly none of us in this thread, disabled or not, want able bodied people pretending to be disabled. Whether it's a fetish, a means to deceive, or a genuine mental health issue.

But those of us who identify as disabled would quite like our voices to be at least heard when we point out how we would like to talk about ourselves - especially as there is a tendency for able bodied people to use dehumanising language about us already, or to infantalise us.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows anyone to self-identify as disabled and forbids organisations for asking to see proof. That caused huge problems for places like DisneyWorld as too many people claimed to be disabled in order to get a queue pass. It was because of this that Disney had to change their policy to stop the queue pass system and switch to a virtual queue. Disabled people lost out because people abused a version of self-id.
This all happened because the law prevents places from asking for proof.

In the UK, it is expected that disabled people have to provide proof if they identify as disabled and want access or adjustments. Long may that continue.

It's not the "identifying" that is the problem, it's the need to see proof.

Oh, and I've made crystal clear that I am extremely anti-TRA. Several of my posts in this thread alone have talked extensively about the risks the TRA movement poses to women. So please don't gaslight me.

And what I am talking about is the risk, and the potential, for the same thing to happen to disabled spaces. Instead you are insisting we can't talk about this risk because MN users often have an approach you don't like, which I know nothing about.

What you have shown is that the disability activist community is already mired in identity politics. This means there is an "oppression Olympics" where the loudest voices forbid dissent or discussion. I am giving my partner's perspective. I am not screaming. I am questioning.

According to the DWP I am not disabled
Except the DWP doesn't decide that. The DWP doesn't tell anyone they are not disabled, they tell disabled people whether or not they meet their criteria to claim certain benefits.
You still have legal protection under the EHRA as a disabled person, even if you have been turned down for benefits.

A person who chose to identify as disabled when they clearly weren't, would not have any legal protection, would not be able to request reasonable adjustments and would not qualify for benefits. All of those things require evidence.

A lot of people have a negative view of the word disabled. There is often a perception that a person who refuses to see themselves as disabled (despite being disabled) is really brave. A blind person saying - no, I'm not disabled, I don't let my blindness stop me from doing things - is viewed almost heroically.
I don't agree with that viewpoint. I don't think it is heroic or brave to deny being disabled.

I am disabled, that's an inescapable fact. It's not a negative thing in itself, it doesn't make me any less than anyone else. Acknowledging it makes it easier for me to arrange appropriate support.

Being disabled has a definition:
You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.
‘substantial’ is more than minor or trivial, eg it takes much longer than it usually would to complete a daily task like getting dressed
‘long-term’ means 12 months or more, eg a breathing condition that develops as a result of a lung infection

For most people, it is fairly clear if this definition applies to you. There are people who don't neatly fit, particularly for conditions that vary a lot. This is where identifying as disabled can be more useful. It is not for people who don't meet those criteria to use by choice.

So we can't have a conversation about it. This is another parallel to trans activism. You are forbidding discussion using attacks and hyperbole, while claiming you are the one being attacked.