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?

I’m disabled (bad anxiety, ADHD) and my employer didn’t ask me for proof, they just offered me any adjustments I might need.

I would hope people wouldn’t take the piss because this is a positive thing for those of us who do have conditions.

Also self identifying as black or Asian includes people who don’t look typically black or Asian but are mixed race. I know a few mixed people who look white.

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 didn't know that was by self-identification tho' it makes some sense. (Yes, I have given my seat to someone with the lanyard - I suspect other passengers might have offered but I'm nosy enough to read quite small print and I think others might not be.)

I totally understand how some people with the same issues may consider themselves disabled, when others don't. But in a job situation, I know that it can be determined whether you legally meet the definition of disability under the discrimination act. I know because work insisted in sending me to a Dr to determine whether I did - I did meet the legal definition.

Post a link to the job application on here @Houndsofhove, so we can see for ourselves.

I think the word self-identify is ridiculous. To identify as something already means that you assign yourself to a group.
The word self in front of it just makes it sound dumb.

It's like the word over-exagerate, sticking a prefix in front of a word that
already has that meaning just makes the word redundant and the user look a bit dim.

I think the word self-identify is ridiculous. To identify as something already means that you assign yourself to a group

But some people would think that to identify as disabled for example, you need "proof" of disability in someway. Self identify just means that is how you personally see yourself, rather than how others may identify you.

Again, its a misunderstanding of the word.

It's the rise of identity politics and it is a fucking joke. If Labour can have a man self identifying as a woman (and also incidentally self identifying as disabled, autistic and schizophrenic) as a 'Women's Officer' in Kent, then this shit does not surprise me at all. If you don't believe me then google Lily Madigan.

It is a very sinister agenda and is particularly bad for women. Wake up people because this is what's coming your way.

I can see it making sense with ethnicity as well...what about DC with 1 mixed race parent, some will see themselves as mixed-race and others will see themselves as white 'but my gran is from X'

Or people from places like Georgia and Armenia they might identify as white or as minority ethnic.

That statement is a pretty standard statement of positive action. The company will realise they don’t have a lot of staff from those groups and are keen to encourage applications from those groups. It doesn’t mean they will be hired on that basis, that would positive discrimination and illegal.

So you could say you self identify as being from a group, even if you don’t, but it won’t help you get the job. It will be entirely based on merit and suitability, same as any job.
Also reasonable adjustments can most certainly be made without a full diagnosis. A lot of people who are dyslexic, for example, will never have been formally diagnosed as it is expensive and wasn’t the done thing for older generations. However they may know exactly what helps them do their job more effectively. I bet a fair whack of employers would just put the adjustment in place without proof, as often it’s not too expensive anyways. Just depends on the employer and staff member.

kary yeah I don’t like the policing of what disabled people can use either. It’s up to those of us affected by these things to decide what terms to use surely!

It's the rise of identity politics and it is a fucking joke. If Labour can have a man self identifying as a woman (and also incidentally self identifying as disabled, autistic and schizophrenic) as a 'Women's Officer' in Kent, then this shit does not surprise me at all. If you don't believe me then google Lily Madigan

You are mixing up two completely seperate and distinct things.

The best person for the job is the best person for the job.

And often, disabled, women and ethnic minority employees ARE the best person, but are held back due to discrimination.

Do you have a problem with companies trying to make things fairer?

The same as @shoelaces. My boss is superb, and has never once 'needed' proof. It is ready if required.

HOWEVER (that's a big 'however'), self identification by some employees has been problematic, and in some areas its almost been a 'top trumps' of supposed 'need'. It's a massive problem where reasonable adjustments come in, budgets and so forth. Many of my similarly disabled colleagues are furious, knowing that those who have proclaimed disability are not so, under the terms of the EQA.

The root cause? Scared and overwhelmed employers who fear lawsuits, ETs, and grievances because of the entitled.

The word 'are' (insert nomenclature here) would be more useful. The ease of self identification doesn't help anyone, IMO.

karyatide did you mean sex not gender?

toomany how so? This man has identified as disabled - is that not what we are talking about?

I was merely pointing out that self id exists elsewhere too. Men identifying as women are a very great threat to women's rights and safety.

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.

They would be breaking the law then, employees do not need medical proof that they are disabled for the employer to have to act on their legal obligation to provide reasonable adjustments.

Do you have a problem with companies deliberately trying to employ more women, or more BAME applicants, or more disabled people?

But if men self id as women, maybe a black woman, dunno if anyone done that get, then women or black women are still missing out?

That can't be right, surely I have misunderstood.

VanGogh No they are not breaking the law. There is a legal definition for who is disabled under the law.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44256760

I think the writing could be clearer but it fits UK law and the desire many companies have to at least appear open and welcoming to marginalized groups. For many job postings and applications I've seen, there is a question about disabilities which usually defines it as "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities" or similar. There is no mention of diagnosis or anything other than the person sees themself as fitting that definition. As others have said, it's pretty much one of the only ethical ways of doing it without putting extra barriers in place to provide proof of the need for accommodations (which often adds the expense of doctors notes and such).

Most boxes for ethnicity or sexuality are by their nature an individual identifying themself. While there are some important questions to be raised about keeping definitions clear for many reasons, I don't really see another ethical way of doing this on forms. I've had the very awkward and painful experience of having a professional disregard how I identified my children's ethnicity and reidentified them as she saw fit. I really wish she would have just believed and accepted what I said rather than deny most of my kids' family and nationality.

While I'm big on clear communication and groups being able to define who they are and aren't themselves at a social level, at the individual level we have enable people to identify themselves and accept that even when some people lie for whatever reason, no other policing for an application form is really going to be better than that.