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?

Is there anything wrong or lacking in the alternative:

Are you black/ disabled... etc?

It says what needs to be said. No complicated ID'ing or self-ID'ing.

@CuriousaboutSamphire
For every person, who gets pissed off with the wording of the ad, there will be at least one, who is helped by it. I was told 2/3 years ago on mumsnet categorically that I’m disabled. I just hadn't seen myself like that and didn’t really realise how disabled I actually am. It’s a fluctuating health condition but even at my best, I’m a long way from being my able bodied self. It then took me ages to decide to apply for a blue badge, which needless to say I qualify for one.

I totally disagree with the content of your email and actually find it very offensive. These people are trying to be inclusive. It’s no point having an idealistic view of how things should be and ignoring how things are. All this type of email will encourage is for employers to no longer offer statements of inclusion. I imagine (at least hope) this wouldn’t deter those from ethnic minority’s but may in turn deter those with disabilities. Quite simply, society cannot run before it walk.

Scarlet for you = embarrassed for you ...... which I am too, especially now you've dismissed Black Lives Matter as a well meaning identity politics movement.

I think ID or self ID are actually important to use for disability. I have known many people who have a disability that impacts on their day to day life but may not be getting active treatment or perhaps don’t have a full diagnosis. They may just see “Are you disabled?” And think, no I’m not, I’ve not got a diagnosis officially and then not think this statement doesn't applies to them. However this sort of statement generally would apply to them. ID or self ID takes away that implication of “official” diagnosised disability being required.

I really just don’t understand the upset about this. It doesn’t exclude anyone, it just says we recognise these people might need a bit of encouragement and want to let them know the employer is keen t9 hear from them.

Is there anything wrong or lacking in the alternative: Are you black/ disabled... etc?

Its not the same question though, as has already been explained. Are you disabled can mean are you registered disabled, are you objectively disabled, are you proveably disabled? This question asks "do YOU consider yourself to have a disability"? Different question.

I agree with those who think it is clearer to write:
"We particularly encourage applications from those who are black, Asian, minority ethnic, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/ or disabled."
No need for the self-identify nonsense. Those groups experience discrimination in the work place, people who self-identify as a member of one of those groups may or may not.

THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION THEY ARE ASKING THOUGH!

Seriously, its not that hard to understand is it?

Should blue badges be offered to people who merely self-identify as disabled?

I've never been asked for medical proof of my disability when applying for my blue badges (I'm on my 3rd). Like Karyatide I have Ehlers-Danlos. So I guess that means I get a blue badge by self identifying as disabled. I can prove it, but they dont need it.

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

No, it really doesn't and really isn't. Equality means giving everyone a level playing field to start from - giving a wheelchair user an accessible office (on the ground floor or accessible by lift) so they can get there as easily as an able bodied person, giving visually impaired people a larger screen than others so they can see as well as able bodied people see theirs, allowing disabled staff to park in the execs car park because it's closer to their office and they can get there without pain or fatigue like able bodied people, giving someone with immunity problems more sick days than someone with normal immunity before applying standard policies etc. It is not as simple as "Do unto others..." Other people may think a disabled person is pisstaking and could manage perfectly well as others in the workplace, but they wouldn't be taking that individuals experience into account. You might think Susan just wants a comfier chair than everyone else and she looks like she's ok so she should just have the same as the rest of the office, but it may be that she has crippling back spasms from the chair when she gets home at night.

Some adjustments might actually seem quite unfair and as treating a disabled person differently, but they level things out.

Regarding self identifying - it's all self identification. At one job I was told I couldn't have reasonable adjustments unless I was registered disabled with the local council. I rang them and they said they now only keep registers for blind, deaf and learning disabled people and my blue badge was proof enough, even though the EA didnt requure proof. I went back to HR, who were sceptical and said they'd "Look into it" and got the same answer. I got my adjustments. There is no longer such a thing as registered disabled. Your council might keep a list of vulnerable people for Safeguarding reasons, or specific conditions, but not general disability. If places require proof now they usually ask for a PIP letter, copy of your blue badge or a diagnosis letter. But TBH I got in for free at a major London landmark recently as DS' carer (ASD) and although I brought his diagnosis letter and benefits letter they waved us through happily without me showing anything. DS looks like any other tech obsessed tween and neither of us is obviously disabled.

Look at this page - no mention anywhere of needing "proof": www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/showing-you-re-disabled-under-the-equality-act/

Also, pay attention to what it says about managed conditions. Contrary to what PP have said, even if your condition is managed, you are still disabled if you would suffer without that management in place.

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

It really does not mean that at all. Thats actually pretty much the opposite of what it means.

especially now you've dismissed Black Lives Matter as a well meaning identity politics movement. Except I didn't, quite.... I will acknowledge that I could have written it more clearly, I said as much at the end of the self same post

I referred to well meaning movements and the reality that the very existence of identity politics leads to violence as, for some small minded, fearful people, anyone different a threat.

Black Lives Matter was an example of such a group that, as I explained, should have no reason whatsoever to exist in the 21st century.

But I take your point and will stick to simple sentences.

karyatide Nobody could disagree with any of the, I don't. I simply think that 'self identification' is a very poor choice of terminology.

But...given the history of minority people being encouraged to "pass as white" etc, I just have some deep deep discomfort with the "self-identifying" moniker in this instance

I'm not sure I understand. You are deeply uncomfortable with mixed race people calling themselves mixed race if you think they look too white? That's pretty....weird, and makes me uncomfortable

You know, @toomanychilder, if you were genuinely seeking understanding, you'd have said "it sounds like you mean...is that what you mean?" But you didn't.

Instead, you faux "misunderstand", putting obviously incorrect and inflammatory words in my mouth. So, you're clearly not discussing in good faith. I will not engage any further with you. It seems a waste of time when there are people on the thread actually coming out with descriptions of Black Lives Matter that are based in such profound ignorance.

If you mean me cucumbergin, I didn't say what some posters have said I dis.

The full post makes it quite clear what I meant, but sound biting and deliberate obfuscation is more fun, apparently!

You won't engage because I pointed out the serious difficulties with your post? Ok, I guess that's one way to do it. I have to assume my perception of your comments was correct then if you have no wish to clarify them.
I asked in good faith, that was precisely how your comments read: as if you felt it problematic for light looking mixed race people to call themselves what they actually are. Is that not correct?

No, Curious, re-read - I addressed and quoted toomanychilder directly.

What you are doing though is taking the wilful "I don't see colour why does everyone else have to make a fuss" tack which utterly ignores systemic discrimination. If you don't know what I'm talking about...well you can stay ignorant or you can read up on stuff. I'd recommend reading about Black Lives Matter, something written by people actually involved.

karyatide, I totally understand what you are saying. And I agree with it.

My fear is that moving "self-identifying" into the job market will have negative consequences for people with disabilities in the longer term.

Maybe you are less cynical than me. If a company is on a drive to recruit more workers with disabilities and they have two applicants, one who self-identifies as disabled because of colour blindness and one who has a medical diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Which one will they go for? My money is on the former in the majority of jobs.

So the company is happy because it is hitting its quota for staff with disabilities while ensuring that people with moderate or severe disabilities never darken their door. The individual is happy because he's got a job.

The only people negatively affected are those people who have a higher level of disability. Who didn't get the job.

It is a case of being careful what you wish for.

The law of unintended consequences and all that.

I think that you can chose not to self-identify as disabled.

I have a condition with which I could have claimed various disability allowances for the past 32 years. It is an invisible disability (i.e. you cant tell when you look at me, it is physical.) It is life limiting and certainly places restrictions on how I live.

I chose not to self identify as disabled. Medically I am sure that if I was assessed I would be classed as disabled, whatever that really means.

I have since been diagnosed with a second condition (in part a complication of surgery for the 1st one 30 years ago but not directly connected) , again a condition that many people claim disability benefit support with, but I also chose not to say that I am disabled because of either of these 2 conditions. Other people with these conditions would identify as disabled- that is their choice completely and I respect that.

Occasionally I have to explain to people that I cant to XX because of YY. Only once have I used the term disabled about myself and that was abroad as I lacked the language skills to explain my condition and why it prevented me from doing something.

Everything karyatide said.

Also, not just that the disabled person may not feel they have the right to call themselves disabled, other people may not allow it either.

My dd's headteacher interrupted me every time I referred to her as disabled and asked "but is she registered disabled?" He simply would not accept that there is no national register of "disabled people" that everybody with a disability gets entered on. We did not have a car (I am unable to drive due to visual impairment) so didn't have a blue badge. He had been given all dd's medical files, with her Ehlers Danlos diagnosis, but to his mind that was not the same as some (non-existent) diagnosis of "disability". To him, the fact that I kept speaking of dd as disabled (because she bloody couldn't walk!) was a sign of fraudulent intent, that I was making claims to which dd had no right, no doubt to get her preferential treatment to which she had no right.

@Popchyk Did you read Tillebean's post earlier? Seriously go back and read it.

Making people aware they are welcome to apply is not the same as "we will give you the job".

I think as others have said that this wording is acceptible.

Dd identifies as being autistic. She has the typicaltriad of impairments, we have an ed psych report that says she shows traits of being autistic and should be given the necessary adjustments/strategies but due to our area refusing to see anyone who isn't suffering severe mental illness (all asd diagises have to be referred via CAMHS) she does not have an official diagnoses.

Similarly I have friend whose grandmother is Indian. To all intents and purposes my friend looks white British. If you look at her mother or brother however, they are clearly mixed race. My friend suffered some cruel comments throughout school when classmates saw the rest of her family including comments that got her actual racial origins comepletely wrong.

Except I didn't say that cucumber.

Are you confusing my post with someone else's?

My apologies, that is why I checked who you were referring to!

What you are doing though is taking the wilful "I don't see colour why does everyone else have to make a fuss" Nope, I was choosing one of many identity based political movements that shouldn't have any need to exist in the 21st century. I could have chosen any number of groups based on narrow/singular identities, gay, lesbian, ginger, male, female, Asian, blind, etc etc etc. Black Lives Matter sprang to mind because of the news I was listening to as I typed! Had Jeremy Vine not been talking about skin lightening creams I would have typed a different group!

I am decrying that systematic discrimination. It has no place in a civlised society. I think that identity politics can and does make that worse as it provides labels by which the small minded can further label people as 'other', begetting more discrimination and violence.

So I think we agree, just phrase it differently.

No need for the self-identify nonsense.

Except there is. Plenty of people still think you're only disabled if you get PIP or are physically impaired, or are "registered" as per the old legacy system. See Cory's post above.

THERE IS NO REGISTER OF DISABLED PEOPLE. The idea makes me shudder.

are you registered disabled

I've heard this term a lot but can find no register of disabled people.

Where are disabled people supposed to register?