Self identifying as disabled

[GCautist]

There’s a slight furore in Scottish politics I was reading about on Twitter last night, where it was stated in an SNP doc that a potential candidate who self identified as disabled or BAME would be placed at the top of the list for list votes to ensure better representation in parliament.

On the surface having diverse representation is much needed but there’s been a lot of issue with the term ‘self identify as disabled’.

IMO there’s a difference between declaring you have a disability and self identifying as having a disability and it’s the wording rather the policy itself that is problematic.

Aibu to think you can’t identify into being disabled in the same way you can’t identify out of being disabled?

Can we please discuss this issue without it turning into a rant about independence (for or against) or how awful you personally believe Nicola Sturgeon is?

Well many people have to self identify as being disabled, because diagnoses are not always accessible. So do you want to exclude those people just because there might be some people who will lie?

I don't see how the wording is going to make people more likely to lie; they're either that kind of person or they aren't.

It's not nearly as clear cut as skin colour, sexual orientation or sex/gender. Disability is about the impact it has on an individual's daily life, not about the way others might perceive it. Lots of people will only count someone as disabled if they notice an obvious clue, like a wheelchair or a white stick.

IMO if you have to self identify as something then you aren’t it.

No, saying people can self identify into a catagory doesn’t make people more likely to lie, it just means that those who would lie can freely do so.

YANBU. It’s ludicrous.

But it’s ludicrous for the same reason that you can’t identify as another race or sex. It’s the logical conclusion of telling people for years that you can change sex. If you can change that, then why not anything else? That’s what people will conclude anyway.

It’s both offensive and preposterous.

You don't get a letter from the doctor that says "you are a disabled person now" some people with MS, for example, might describe themselves as a disabled person whereas another will say they have MS but are not disabled because it is not disabling their life. Neither is wrong.

All part of the crazy. By the time I'm old I'll probably be in a labour camp to atone for the sin of whatever people decide the latest oppression is.

I think it's complicated.

I know people who have hearing loss but do not identify as disabled; I think in the deaf community there are people who get quite offended at the idea of it being a 'disability' and therefore might not 'identify' as disabled?

It's much more of a grey area, but I'm dyslexic/dyspraxic; I have a diagnosis and it's relevant to my work, so the question always comes up on those HR forms you fill in. They ask you to tick the box if you consider yourself disabled, and then they give list of 'disabilities' including dyslexia/dyspraxia. I always feel a bit weird that, by ticking that box, I am identifying as disabled although I don't really feel I am disabled by it.

So I suppose I can see why people might want the phrasing to be 'identifies as disabled' rather than 'is disabled'.

Getting diagnoses for hidden conditions is a nightmare but would be classed as a disability once diagnosed.

So if the condition you have is undiagnosed but has a major impact on your day to day life, ability to work etc, are you not disabled? Of course not. But you are not protected by the equalities act the same way as if you have a diagnosis.

Mixed race people who pass as white might identify more as Black or other minority.

It was a bit more than that, if I understood it right (and it was so weird that I REALLY am not sure I did.

It was that 8 of 12 constituencies would have positive discrimination applied to candidates, disability and race. 2 of thise voting for this immediately made it clear they would stand, one citing diabetes as her disability. It was seen as a way to oust a few female MPs who don't quite toe the weird party line!

The meeting was called for one reason; the articles for that meeting were not provided and they (possibly illegally) chose to vote on this instead!

To make it worse, the original meeting was to agree a definition of transphobia!

I was a bit confused by there are 8 lists for different regions. 4 top spots reserved for disabled and 4 for bame. E.g. south Scotland has a top spot for a disabled candidate. But what if you are an excellent bame candidate in an area earmarked for disabled candidate top spot? Is it just hard cheese?

I think this is cover for the trans lobby. If you can self-identify as almost anything, then the trans issue just becomes part of the new normal.

The wording is odd but overall I think it's positive.

Hidden disabilities are very much 'real' disabilities, and nobody owes you an explanation of how their disability affects them.

Psychiatric illnesses are disabilities, are there is still so much stigma towards people with those.

You don't get to decide who is legit about having a disability, and who isn't disabled enough by your standards

You have people with no legs who don't see themselves as disabled though so how does that work?

Aibu to think you can’t identify into being disabled in the same way you can’t identify out of being disabled

Once you have accepted that a man can self identify as a woman and all that entails, there's no reason to say you can't self identify as disabled, which is a far more nebulous thing.

Question, can people self-identify out of being disabled? So if you have something that other people classify as a disability, can you self-identify as not disabled?

@IncludeWomenInTheSequel

I think this is cover for the trans lobby. If you can self-identify as almost anything, then the trans issue just becomes part of the new normal.

Oh, what a load of bollocks.

Whatever you think about trans issues, this is just nonsense. People have been talking about the language around disability for decades and debates about whether it's a fixed state or a matter of perception go back years.

Representation isn’t representation when it is pre-decided based on sex, race, disability, gender etc. It’s not really democracy. I don’t want people who look like me to represent me. I couldn’t care less about that. I want people who think like me.

But to your point, it’s ridiculous to allow people to self-identify as disabled.

@YawnyOwl

I was a bit confused by there are 8 lists for different regions. 4 top spots reserved for disabled and 4 for bame. E.g. south Scotland has a top spot for a disabled candidate. But what if you are an excellent bame candidate in an area earmarked for disabled candidate top spot? Is it just hard cheese?

Yes, it is.

Given the way the system is designed, the SNP will likely only win one list seat at best in each region as they tend to do better at first past the post. So the selection of who gets that one seat really matters.

It’s one of the arguments used against list systems - it hands control of who wins the seat to party insiders not the electorate.

And yet this has come out of a meeting about the trans issue within the party (I read that somewhere earlier but can't remember where now or I'd link it).

@Theunamedcat

You have people with no legs who don't see themselves as disabled though so how does that work?

It is completely up to the individual.

However, the fact remains that from a legal standpoint, a person with a disability would be covered by the Equality Act on the basis of their disability.

Actually @SarahAndQuack there is something to that! See my earlier post.

The details are on the SNP twitter, I think. As I posted earlier, the meeting was odd, the vote could have been unconsitutional!

Once you have accepted that a man can self identify as a woman and all that entails, there's no reason to say you can't self identify as disabled, which is a far more nebulous thing.
Exactly. Also this self-ID for disability only works if you think people are generally honest and will not game the system. I don't really believe that anymore.

No, you cannot identify as disabled, it's imo disgusting to do so. The same way you can't identify as black or white. Same goes for sex.

Well many people have to self identify as being disabled, because diagnoses are not always accessible

This!

I am disabled, I have a "pencilled in" diagnosis but basically the drs can't seem to reach agreement on exactly what's wrong with me. Doesn't mean I'm not disabled though.

Mental illness as a disability meets disagreement too even though enshrined in Uk law. I've had people say that's not a "real" disability.

Millions of Brits have undx learning disabilities too.

Positive discrimination is a tricky position to take anyway. For starters is there really such a thing? As in is it really "positive"? Then there's all the discussion around whether it really works, causes resentment, makes those candidates that are "successful" but fit into a "minority" category possibly viewed as not being up to the role, the candidates themselves wanting to know they were successful on merit, but then also there ARE inequalities in society and how do we balance those?

There's usually a dubious agenda at play anyway.

As someone who is Bame and has a learning disability I don't understand how you can self identify these things, your Bame because your family is and you have a disability because you have been identified as having one... Literally people trained to identify these things

Just join the SNP @pumpkinbump and you can do all three.