I wish there was an "it's complicated" option for disability questions

[blossomt]

When I fill in surveys or equal opportunities forms etc, I don't think I can really answer yes or no.

I have a medical condition where I'm fine most of the time but occasionally it'll go wrong again and I'll need a load of medical appointments to sort it out, but outside of that my life is normal. I never want to say yes in case it leads to discrimination.

I wish they'd give us a wider variety of possible answers.

Just me?

No, I often feel like this. I have dyslexia/dyspraxia, and it's at a level where it absolutely does impact on certain things at work, once or twice in a blue moon; it's also invariably listed in the drop-down menu on job applications, so clearly they intend for you to tick the box if you have it, and I think that's important because it'll allow people to assess how many people with those conditions end up working in this sort of job.

But I don't feel 'disabled' by it and I would never go around saying 'oh yes, me, I'm a disabled person because I'm dyslexic'. I would feel like a wanker.

I really need something like 'I have something that will occasionally mean you need to cut me some slack/let me use software, but most of them time will be no bother'.

I am hearing impaired. It impacts me in the workplace - but mostly around my confidence and socially integrating with a new team more slowly, not actually doing my job. I don’t request adjustments.

I always tick “no” because I don’t want to contribute to a statistic that makes a company / organisation think they’re doing enough to attract disabled people. It’s incidental to how disability friendly a company or place or organisation is.

Definitely! I have a chronic illness that means I'm
Immunocompromised. Need appointments every 12 weeks but I feel it's not really disabled. Although my work has extended sickness for me under the equality act

I always tick no as well, I'm ok most of the time, occasionally I'm not but I wouldn't want to contribute to the disability stats. Possibly taking a place from someone who needs full time accomodations.

I don't understand what would be the benefit of an 'its complicated'? It would surely just be a way of saying either 'I'm disabled but don't want to talk about it' or 'I've self-diagnosed as disabled' (which, for better or worse, tends to bring out a lot of bias in any case)

Disclosing a disability in an employment setting is effectively about legal requirements on one hand and tracking diversity and inclusion on the other.

In an work setting, an interviewer or direct manager usually shouldn't be told anything about any disclosure of disability unless it's relevant. However disclosure does give you some protection in the case of discrimination (they can't say that they had no idea), allows you to ask for any interview accomodations needed l, and also lets them track whether for example they aren't reaching certain underrepresented groups, or people from those groups are never getting to the final round / getting promoted.

In both these cases it can help you.
There's also the wider benefit of more people being open about disability, and employers seeing that actually they have a large number of valuable employees in this group.

If you're not sure if it counts, have a look at the Equality Act to see if your condition counts as a disability. Sounds like it definitely would, and it might ultimately be helpful if you make your work aware of your condition, because they are then also required to make adjustments in the case that you do need appointments or more during a crisis. It should always be up to the individual whether or not to share private information like this, but it really can help.

How do you mean, taking a place from someone?

When would you be 'taking a place'? And what's wrong with contributing to disability stats - in fact, many disabled people would strongly prefer to work somewhere with a higher percentage of people who have indicated that they are disabled, it also spurs employers to take accommodations seriously or risk losing more of their workforce.

@OverTheRubicon I mentioned the stats, though I’m not the poster you’re quoting who said about taking places.
I don’t want someone - say, my employer - to run a report and pat themselves on the back for being disability friendly because they have 20% ticking that box. When actually, they’ve got me for “free” having done nothing attract me or adjust for me. I’d rather HR said, “fuckadoodle we’ve only got 2%! What do we change?”

Taking a place from someone like a wheelchair user, or a blind person, or a deaf person who needs other colleagues to know sign language etc. The kinds of disabilities that need considerable adjustments or clear accessibility requirements. Those things are totally different to someone with a medical condition who feels fine most of the time but occasionally has flareups and might need a couple of extra medical appointments here and there. It's ridiculous to lump us all in together as one "disabled" category.

It is absolutely the case that companies sometimes take on people with these occasional flare-ups so as to fulfil a quota of "disabled" staff, then they won't bother looking at wheelchair users (who find it much harder to find a job) because they think they've done their bit for the day. It really doesn't improve diversity.

Yes this is what I mean.

This is so patronising. When I first got diagnosed I went to see a disability employment advisor, which I absolutely wouldn't do now, but I was new to it all at the time and didn't know how it all worked. She said I should disclose my medical condition at all job interviews, so I did, and got a load of funny looks. So I went to see a normal careers advisor who gave me the opposite advice and told me not to say anything. Followed this advice, went to an interview and didn't mention it, funnily enough I got offered the job 🤔Worked there for a few years, became very ill one day and ended up in hospital, and only then did I tell them I had a medical condition. They were fine about it then as they'd already known me for a few years.

I'm very sure that being open about this would be of sod all use to a wheelchair user or blind person, since it was an old, complicated building with loads of stairs everywhere and we were constantly running around the building.

It is absolutely the case that companies sometimes take on people with these occasional flare-ups so as to fulfil a quota of "disabled" staff, then they won't bother looking at wheelchair users (who find it much harder to find a job) because they think they've done their bit for the day. It really doesn't improve diversity.

In the vast majority of organisations with these types of questionnaires at interview, the interviewer and hiring manager will not see the questionnaire results unless it is directly relevant to the process or role (e.g. someone states that they are sight impaired and requires accommodation at interview).

Having more people indicate their disabled status has its own benefit. In a similar example, plenty of women will never require maternity leave or need adjustments made for difficulties with childcare, PMT or menopause during the relatively few years they are with a given employer - however having a larger number of women makes companies more open to female candidates, and many (though of course not all) women are more aware of the challenges other women can face. It still helps.

Someone with epilepsy might not need their physical work environment changed, but will absolutely have more understanding of the challenges faced by other disabled colleagues in needing extra time for appointments or additional sick leave, or fearing judgement from peers who see evidence of illness or difference. A sales manager who realises that their top performer has chronic depression (even if it's well managed with medication and never needs time off) is much more likely to be open to the next candidate who ticks the disabled box - and that might be the person in a wheelchair, or with a white cane. It's also worth noting that in a professional environment, few people will be fired for a 'flare up' but in retail or small businesses many are, it is still a meaningful area of disability discrimination.

It's a knock on effect. Centring 'disability' on the smaller percentage of disabled people who have a visible difference and are in or seeking employment (numbers vary, but under 25% is almost guaranteed) can hurt rather than hinder equality.

@OverTheRubicon You're one of those people who knows all the theory but doesn't know what it's like in real life.

I don't want to be listed as a disabled person. I don't want to be here to fulfil a quota. At the same time, I do want my employer to be understanding if something goes wrong. That's why I wrote this thread, because a simple yes or no answer just doesn't work for a lot of us and is nowhere near nuanced enough.

Agreed. I, like everyone else, should get the job based on qualifications, experience, etc. and nothing relating to my disability.

I can't work due to my various health problems. But I know I'd have to disclose them. Whilst there is the odd one I can get away with not mentioning, I'd need adjustments for the most part.

Yes, me too, I have type 1 diabetes, so I wouldn’t consider myself as being disabled, but it can be a pain in the arse at times and sometimes stop me doing things.

Yanbu. I'm disabled now, but I was definitely in that limbo stage for a while.

What makes you qualified to patronise someone else like that? I'm not in HR but work closely with teams that are, hire people frequently, and have worked in a variety of companies including as a consultant, so I've seen a lot of setups. I'm also disabled myself, do disclose at interview, and work with external DEI groups.

Of course there will be places that do this badly, but your experience is not the only way. Realistically, I also can't see what an 'its complicated' would achieve for the person or the company. The business would legally have to assume you are disabled in any case, and/or ask clarifying questions to establish the situation, and then classify you anyway. There's a valid reason to always have a 'do not wish to answer' choice on any form, but not something half way.

I agree it's ridiculous to lump everyone into one 'disabled' category. But I think, surely, if companies are fudging their responsibilities, that's on the companies. I don't see what practical purpose it serves for people to agonise over whether they're disabled 'enough' or to start opting out in the hope that, by not declaring a disability, they'll suddenly make an unethical company become ethical.

I think calling this 'taking a place from someone' is needlessly divisive and frankly a bit shit. If you want to blame someone, blame companies, not individuals.

I don't find the disability box a good fit, and I am uncomfortable with it, but I also know that people with dyslexia (which is my tickbox) are overrepresented in the prison population and underrepresented in the line of work I've been in. I don't think that's because dyslexic people are inherently criminal. I think it is because a lot of dyslexic people still believe they can't do much with their lives, or get told this by others. It's important for people to say, no, I'm dyslexic and so is my colleague, and here we are. So yes, we need to tick that box, so that as well as doing statistics on dyslexics in prison, someone can do statistics on dyslexics in academia or law or finance or whatever.

I think calling this 'taking a place from someone' is needlessly divisive and frankly a bit shit. If you want to blame someone, blame companies, not individual

We're all entitled to our opinion. However having a family member with a severe disability who really struggled to get work for years, then there's no way I would be ticking that box for something that only impacts on me occasionally.

I absolutely agree you're entitled to your opinion and wouldn't for a minute suggest otherwise. I wish I could agree with you that, if only people claimed minor disabilities/health issues didn't exist, employers would suddenly start employing severely disabled people and putting in the appropriate support. But, I'm sorry, I can't believe it.

Some employers do. Particularly the LA. Probably not private practice as much, but I'm guessing that rather than knowing it.

Yes, but this is the problem, right? You're guessing. Because, unless we actually tick boxes, we won't know.

There is a legal definition of disability.
"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."

So fluctuating conditions can be hard to fit into this, however, there are guidelines to help you decide if you fit.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance/disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html

I think it really comes down to how much your condition affects you in your normal daily life, averaged out over a few months. If it's a significant amount then that would probably meet the criteria.

I would not want to see a third option for that question.

Yes, but this is the problem, right? You're guessing. Because, unless we actually tick boxes, we won't know.

I'm not ticking those boxes. I do know about local authorities. I don't know about private practice. I've never worked in private practice. You can tick the boxes if you feel it benefits you. Wherever it is that you work.