To think self-identifying as disabled or as black/Asian is offensive?

[HoundsOfHove]

Applying for a job. It says this in the wording -
"We particularly encourage applications from those who self-identify as black, Asian, minority ethnic, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/ or disabled."

No problem with that obviously, but why not say people who are the above?

Otherwise couldn't I self-identify as disabled? And that's wrong, because I'm not. And hugely offensive to people who aren't able-bodied! And if I self-identify then they just have to take my word for it? Or is it just the new way of phrasing things?

What is self identify vs identify?

www.dancecity.co.uk/about-us/jobsvolunteers/

See for yourself Pad.

Hmm. That list of self identifiers looks a bit thin. I self identify as a golden retriever and I feel slighted and neglected.

Nah, not buying it sorry.

Google is your friend -

www.dancecity.co.uk/about-us/jobsvolunteers/

sorry - cross post!

I stand corrected. That’s terrible wording.

Well no matter how much you self-identify as disabled at work, they will not offer any reasonable adjustments until you provide the medical proof.
Don't know about the others.

I'd have said I wanted an explanation about the self-identification and exactly how that information is acted on.

I would be extremely tempted to email or phone using a different name and challenge this stupid wording.

No problem Riddley.

The world has gone mad. On a recent thread a poster said she self identified as Deaf although she was hearing because she had friends in the Deaf community.

I might self-identify as a Lazy, Entitled member of society. I expect my employer to pay me in full for doing only the jobs I feel like doing when I want to do them.

It is redundant phrasing. "Self-identify" and "identify" mean precisely the same things.

"Are" Black/disabled/Asian etc. is equally problematic because it introduces a question of objective proof, which is never going to work with regards to questions of sexuality etc., let alone race, which can be just as much of a minefield (like, if someone walks in for interview having identified as Black and the interviewer sees them as "more white", are they going to challenge them on it?).

"Identify" is fine.

Ha. Political correctness has eaten itself. Now white, straight males can "identify" as black, gay, females and cry discrimination if someone objects.

Surely if males can self identify as female without the biology, it goes that no minority groups are exempt?
What is going on with society that people have to fit into specific groups with specific labels?
It offends me that my personal details page on my employers intranet page wants to know whether I'm gay straight or bisexual. Why the fuck does it matter?

I don't think you've understood it. Some people may have needs that means they identify as disabled, another person may have the same needs but do consider themselves to have a disability, for example. There is no suggestion that fully able bodied people can just self identify as disabled!

There is also self id with race to some extent as well. For example, I have a friend whose parents were one white australian and one Malaysian of mainly Indian ethnicity. My friend looks exactly like her white parent and is blonde, blue eyed and pale, but she is mixed race and identifies as such. (Interestingly her son with a white french guy look just like his malaysian grandparent!)

So yes, the wording is pretty wanky and woke but I think you havent' actually quite understood the meaning.

It's often worded as 'do you consider yourself disabled?' Ususaliy forloowed with a box where you can give details.

There are usually an enormous range of options for monitoring ethnicity - and that is almost always self-declaration, which is never checked (only nationality and right to work in UK).

So yes, the wording might be different, but the scope for the actual action has pre-dated the example you give for a considerable period.

It's no more offensive than suggesting that Men can "self-identify" as Women.....

Employers do it help protect themselves legally when they face discrimination claims on the grounds of race, sexuality, sex and disability.

Volunteer groups do it to help enable them to obtain funding from public bodies/the government by showing they are inclusive.

You might want to think if you should therefore be lobbying TfL whose new ‘Please offer me a seat’ badge is entirely by self-identification.

(I have one, so know that there is no checking at all)

I'm disabled and the best employer I worked for provided adjustments without requiring proof of disability.

I would have been happy to share diagnosis letters etc and have with previous employers. They just took my word for it and made arrangements.

I don't agree with the changes re GRA, but self identifying as disabled was a hugely positive experience for me.

But call me old fashioned what on Earth has any of that to do with being qualified and able to do the job?

I think they've just 'absorbed' the term during some sort of equality training and regurgitated it without really thinking the logic through. Some things really don't have any sinister agenda attached to them; people can and do use words imprecisely.