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?

WeLikeTheStock you are being grossly offensive to Deaf culture. And disgustingly ableist.

If I moved to China tomorrow, I’d have immense difficulty because I don’t speak Chinese. If you moved to a Deaf community tomorrow (they exist, google it), you would have identical difficulties, because you (I assume) don’t sign.

But if a Deaf person can’t communicate with hearing society, they are permanently disabled in your book? Whether they agree with that assessment themselves or not? Even though they can communicate just fine with other Deaf people, or anybody else who can sign? Nope.

The main problem here imo is that it is so hard to get a diagnosis for many conditions especially for women. And I'd rather see politicians working on improving that rather than debating this irrelevant crap.

@Bluebolt

Some councils provide cards that can then be shown, it replaced the registered disabled list. But for them there is strict criteria and proof is needed. Many people still refer to it as the register.

Thanks. That’s interesting and must be helpful.

Following to read later

If 40% are non verbal that leaves 60% who are verbal. And I think I said many, not all.

Are you autistic? If you are not I really don’t think you have the right to comment.

For adults (in my area) the process is not difficult to access. It’s impossible. The referral is simply not made.

I have a form of dwarfism and never know if I count as disabled or not. I've never attempted tog etc aby government help. Life is harder in a world designed for people much taller than me in sure but I manage

*attempted to access any

@Whatisthisfuckery

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.

I disagree with disability. I have a condition that is disabling. But because it’s a gynaecological one a) I might not want to tell you all about it on first meeting and b) It took me 10 years of serious problems that impacted every area of my life to even get a diagnosis. Ironically, even those with the right treatment I am much healthier than I was, now I could declare it whereas in the 10 years of excruciating continuous pain I could only ‘self id’ as I had no diagnosis. Misogyny in health care is rife.

^ that should say ‘I disagree about this for disability’.

‘The main problem here imo is that it is so hard to get a diagnosis for many conditions especially for women. And I'd rather see politicians working on improving that rather than debating this irrelevant crap.’

Yes, absolutely this. This self ID issue is not important to most disabled people. What we need is more access to correct and specialist diagnosis and healthcare.

Your comments may come from what you consider a justified place. But they actually come from a massively privileged place, where you cannot imagine a reason as to why someone cannot follow the process to fight for a diagnosis.

And here we go. A privileged place. Now we have disabled privilege ffs. How fucking privileged is someone who thinks they should grant themselves access to a category simply because they think they deserve to be in it. That is taking a hugely privileged position. If you need a diagnosis, then start the process of getting one. Do not undermine the legislation that protects disabled people by seeking to self identify.

Are you autistic? If you are not I really don’t think you have the right to comment

You said yourself you don't have a diagnosis. So what is it that gives you the right to comment?

Are you autistic? If you are not I really don’t think you have the right to comment. don’t be ridiculous. I can comment on whatever I like, as can you. My disability/ableness doesn’t have to be declared nor is it a trump card. Assuming that everyone who disagrees with you just doesn’t understand isn’t rational.

I think there is a fairytale that self id and self diagnosis are victimless. That they provide comfort and support for people and no one is effected beyond that person. I personally think that’s incorrect and that it damages both the diagnosis and the people who fit the criteria.

It took me 10 years of serious problems that impacted every area of my life to even get a diagnosis.

But you would still have evidence on your medical records that there was a difficulty, even if the cause of the problem is unidentified. Because you would have sought help for that if it was having such an impact on your life.
This is very different from someone self identifying in order to gain themselves a place on a shortlist aimed to redress the balance for those with a disability as defined under the equality act.

don’t be ridiculous. I can comment on whatever I like, as can you.

Yes. I don't buy into the premise, set by some other people in their own minds, that there is only a right to comment if you fit a certain criteria. We can all comment on whatever we want.

www.undiagnosed.org.uk/support_information/what-does-swan-or-being-undiagnosed-mean/

It’s not uncommon that people never get a diagnosis... it doesn’t mean they don’t have a disability or that they’re not recognised as having one.

Equally there are lots of medical conditions that can cause a disability but don’t for some people.

That’s why it’s always do you consider yourself to have a disability or identify as disabled.

I think it is a cop out on the part of the SNP. Specifying ‘self identify as disabled’ as the criteria throws it open to any interpretation/abuse in much the same way as ‘self identifying as a woman’ leaves it wide open to personal interpretation and the inevitable abuse.

If they are going to set criteria for selection to be limited to specific groups they need to put the effort in and define exactly what they mean. They’ve even got a law to help them (Equality Act 2010 although they’ve made it clear that they don’t respect that).

It is concerning when a governing party are not prepared to define their criteria for selection of candidates- that does not help transparency.

It’s not uncommon that people never get a diagnosis... it doesn’t mean they don’t have a disability or that they’re not recognised as having one.

Yes but in order to meet the criteria of the equality act, which seeks to protect disabled people and redress the balance, you will need some evidence that there is a problem, even if it has not been diagnosed because a diagnosis cannot be found. You might self declare, and often people do. But, you also need to be able to provide evidence if required. Often people aren't asked to do so for reasonably minor adjustments and much of the time they don't need to for day to day life. But that doesn't mean people don't need to have that information available if you are defining yourself as having a disability under the equality act, which is there to protect the rights of people with disabilities.

I cannot continue on this thread any longer. The ablist attitude of some is too upsetting. It's not good for my very fragile mental health.

But as only 32% of autistic adults are in paid employment anyway it probably won't impact on anyone anyway.

I have a disability. Much of the time I don't declare it because it doesn't impact hugely on my day to day life. But on some occasions it will, for example I may be able to do a certain job, but occasionally I may need adjustments. This is documented because, as it has caused problems I have sought medical assistance for it. This is where the equality act comes in to protect my rights as a person with a disability, should I need to use it. I don't just decide I have a disability, having never sought any medical help or diagnosis whatsoever.

I cannot continue on this thread any longer. The ablist attitude of some is too upsetting. It's not good for my very fragile mental health

Really? You say you don't have any diagnosis because what you have won't meet the threshold for a diagnosis. But then you accuse disabled people of being ableist. If you don't want to comment here then that's your choice. But don't seek to silence other people due to a criteria of permission to speak that you have decided in your own head. Seriously, I don't mean to be harsh, but I've already seen the harm that self identification causes to other groups of people. I'm not staying silent this time, not now I can see clearly what the end game is.

The Equality Act 2010 states that people are automatically deemed disabled under the Act if they are diagnosed with cancer, MS or HIV/AIDs.

No other condition automatically qualifies you as disabled although of course many people with conditions like Bi Polar, blindness, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, cystic fibrosis etc. will meet the EA2010 definition of disability in terms of the effect on their day to day activities.

I have several disabilities including Epidermolysis Bullosa Simplex which causes fragile skin which blisters easily, especially in hot weather and limits my ability to walk, especially in summer. I cannot use alcohol based mouthwash or use dental floss as my mouth blisters and my gums are fragile.

I have about 8 reasonable adjustments at work and have never been asked for 'proof' of my conditions. Occupational Health were only involved in one of those adjustments. Everything else was done by talking to my manager or an internal DSE assessment. They deal with things like ergonomic keyboards, foot rests, height adjustable desks etc. Soft adjustments like WFH in hot weather or when my feet are bad and time off for medical appointments were just done via a chat with management.

All our Equalities forms at work and at other places I have worked at say something like 'do you consider yourself to have a disability under the EA2010' (usually following the definition of disability).

I prefer the term 'consider' to 'self-identify'.

No doctor has ever said to be that I have a disability, IME they focus on X condition and how we manage it and support with benefits if required (I claimed ESA about 10 years ago as I was unable to work for a while) but don't tend to use the 'D' word. I am confident I meet the EA definition of disability and so I consider myself to have one.

Can I clarify that I have never sought any kind of adjustment or made any declaration etc. I just avoid the things that I find difficult and accept that I'm not a very good person and people often think I'm stuck up or have tantrums if things don't go to plan. It was through the process of attempting to get help for my children that the possibility of me actually being autistic was raised and it would make sense. I would never pursue that, what's the point. When I was at school life was more ordered and the things that make my daughter's life harder were actually seen as good back at my school. Chaotic classrooms for example. As long as my kids are supported that's all that matters.