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?

Except most employers do not ask for proof. They simply accept what the employer says. But an employee can be sent to a Dr to be assessed whether they legally meet the disability discrimination act. It happens all the time when people are sent to occupational health.

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

absolutely agree. But you are confusing that with other things here.

@missusgenehunt - it’s hard to see what you mean there - what are some colleagues of yours asking for that is causing problems? Surely even if you don’t have a diagnosis of a condition you still need to explain why you are asking for reasonable adjustments, so you can’t just say - I want a taxi to work every morning cos I’m disabled, you’d have to explain why you need it. Also, are you privy to all the exact circumstances of why they are asking or adjustments? Ie. I was off work with depression and came back with a reduced workload - very few people knew this and obviously they weren’t allowed to chat about it so I did get some pretty passive aggressive comments from colleagues when actually they didn’t know the circumstances.

I'm mixed-race. I find the idea of "self-identifying" as BAME problematic.

A "white-passing" mixed-race person will have advantages that someone who does not pass so easily will not have. Someone who denies their heritage, will still have some of the disadvantages they were birn with. It's, to be frank, really fucking complicated and I would recommend actually doing a lot of reading on it.

Suffice to say I am not comfortable with that wording applied to the BAME part. And I think it's worth being thoughtful about how you're using these words in an ad.

"Obviously no one is suggesting that able-bodied people “identify” as disabled."

Where there is a benefit to identifying as something that someone is not, then you will get people who see an opportunity.

Should blue badges be offered to people who merely self-identify as disabled? Or do you think, well, certain people will definitely take the piss with that and it will negatively affect people with disabilities as there are not many parking spaces for people with disabilities to start with.

Should people be able to self-identify as disabled and automatically access state benefits reserved for people with disabilities? Or do you think, well, certain people will take the piss with that and it will negatively affect people with disabilities as the government only allocate a certain amount to disability benefits, and genuine people with disabilities will lose out as a direct result.

Could someone like Rachel Dolezal apply for that job because she self-identifies as black? Although she is actually white?

Are male sex offenders women because they say that they self-identify as women after they have been convicted of rape? And should be transferred to women's prisons on their say-so? Or do we say, well, what about the safety of the female inmates in the women's prisons?

I had to... I emailed this:

I wonder if you could help me? I was reading your job advert and was brought to a halt pondering this part:

"We particularly encourage applications from those who self-identify as black, Asian, minority ethnic, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/ or disabled."

Sexual / gender politics aside, could you tell me how anyone could self identify as BME or disabled?

Whilst I understand that current gender politics are making companies tie themselves into knots regarding the Equality Act's and the dual concepts of both sex and gender reassignment as a protected characteristics, I had no idea that there was any such move to allow individuals to self identify as black, Asian or ethnic minority. That would be insulting, written by Rachel Dolezal, perhaps? And how would anyone self identify as disabled? Again, highly insulting to people who are disabled.

I am hoping that this job advert is simply written with an appalling lack of grammar - and no proof reading - and your company really doesn't think that recruitment policies include such patently silly ideas!

Can I suggest that you remove the advert and re-write it? Mainly as I suspect that now it has hit some rather large social media sites, you may be getting a lot more emails like mine.

Also, I can't imagine anyone wanting to work for an employer with such poor communication skills.

Yabu. It's not offensive at all. In fact it's necessary to use that or similar wording because there is no official system univerally recognised for deciding if someone is or is not any of those things.

All they are saying is they welcome applications from people I need those groupings. So they are showing that they are an open minded employer aiming to practise fair recruitment. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Getting hung up on the useage of self id vs consider yourself to be or is or identifies as is just nitpicking for no good reason.

I think as pps have flagged it’s obviously really complex for a lot of people - I feel it in a very minor way when I am faced with the question ‘do you consider yourself disabled’ having a history of depression. At the end of the day it’s just worded to present a commitment to inclusive hiring. It’s not a thesis. Also, it doesn’t mean you’ll be given extra points and it often seems hr take these datails off applications before the selection process if it’s a publicly funded organisation

Curious several people who are disabled have explained on this thread why it’s helpful for disabled people. You talking over us is far more offensive than the advert.

Sounds unbelievably icky. No need to say it at all! Someone in HR is trying to be PC in advance of interviews.

Equal Opportunities means treating everyone as you would like to be treated. That is sufficient.

Agree Popchyck.

Oh that got better!

The person you send you applications to is on holiday - until a few days after the closing date

A "white-passing" mixed-race person will have advantages that someone who does not pass so easily will not have. Someone who denies their heritage, will still have some of the disadvantages they were birn with. It's, to be frank, really fucking complicated and I would recommend actually doing a lot of reading on it

true, but how does that change the fact that they can identify as mixed race, since they are, or they could identify as black, or white, or whatever they chose to?
It doesn't, does it? It's not for you to tell other mixed race people how they can identify.

Sexual / gender politics aside, could you tell me how anyone could self identify as BME or disabled?

It's already been explained to you by people who really know what they are talking about. Why are you ignoring them?

Except legally there is a definition of disabled. It is not based on diagnosis, but the impact any disability has. Which means two people with the same diagnosis, say epilepsy - one can be legally disabled, while one is not. Because vert well controlled epilepsy may have no impact, except taking tablets every day, while another may mean not being able to drive and the impact of having fits. You do not need to be eligible to get PIP, DLA or a Blue Badge to meet the legal definition of disability.

It seems entirely reasonable for some of the groups on that list to have "self-identified" appended, and for that to be respectful of what those communities/marginalised groups prefer.

What an email! Spectacularly pompous, totally missing the point, and being really rude and time wasting for that company.

This thread has plenty of people telling you why self identifying as disabled or BME is a real thing, and instead of actually listening you've gone off and sent them a really offensive email.

You've made yourself look very foolish.

Self identifying as anything you have no direct experience of is offensive, especially so if it's pretending to be an already oppressed or discriminated against group such as ethnic minorities, those with disabilities, women etc. These are not feelings you can identify with they are a reality.

But, that being said, self id is paving the way for all this. Progression innit. Or something.

Ribbity exactly. That poster has just made themself look quite silly!

Except legally there is a definition of disabled. It is not based on diagnosis, but the impact any disability has. Which means two people with the same diagnosis, say epilepsy - one can be legally disabled, while one is not

Yes but the people who are identified as legally disabled may not self identify as disabled. And people who do not meet the legal definition for some reason (its not a simple definition or process) may still feel the need for particular accomodations in a work environment, and employers want to know about that.

How about if you are Caucasian, have Caucasian parents, indeed all ancestors, are pale as can be and have lived all your life in Croydon?
Can you self ID as Asian? 🧐

No.