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?

But that's sort of what a diagnosis is surely?

No of course not!

Why on earth would you think it did?

It’s never solely the diagnosis

Unless you really want to fuck over everyone who has a diagnosis which can have a variety of manifestations of varying impact

This is the problem with the tick-box mentality currently driving all diversity policies. People can say they're anything and they get handed jobs in politics. I want to live in a meritocracy where the right person for the job gets hired and bugger what "isms" or "isn'ts" they tick the boxes for. I don't want to have to "identify" my medical conditions or my family history. I don't want to win a rigged race. I like the "prefer not to say" box.

I have a disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010, it is fairly clear to me.

You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

What ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ mean
‘substantial’ is more than minor or trivial, eg it takes much longer than it usually would to complete a daily task like getting dressed
‘long-term’ means 12 months or more, eg a breathing condition that develops as a result of a lung infection

The CAB give a fairly good explanation

Identifying as having a disability is nothing to do with other types of identity politics.

It’s worded that way often, in lots of circumstances - because the person gets to decide whether what could be classed as a disability actually causes them to feel they have one.

It’s not an opt in identity, it’s an opt out.

So someone could have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, something like autism or 1 leg... but nobody else gets to decide whether that causes a disability or not, they do.

But you can’t identify as having a disability for no reason.

It’s all tied into the social model of disability and having a person centred approach.

I think you are being unreasonable. I have a condition and many (most?) of the people with the condition would consider themselves disabled however I do not. I have never 'identified' as disabled or put it down on job applications etc. Most people are surprised to find out and when they do, presume I am disabled.

So yes you can't identify out of disability as well as in.

Surely this is about discrimination? The whole point of women's lists was because females were/are discriminated against for being women in areas such as politics or STEM for instance. The same applies for other protected characteristics such as disability and race etc. to allow those people to access those things where they might normally face discrimination. If your self - identified disability is not something that would normally prevent you from accessing what ever that thing was then I don't believe you should be trying to take it over someone who actually faces discrimination.

I've probably worded that really badly as I'm very tired but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

@Viviennemary

Of course you can't self- identify as disabled for the purpose as stated. You may think you have got a disability. Is that the same as actually having a disability. It wont do for blue badges and benefit allowances for disability so it shouldn't be allowed in this case.

But in this specific case the SNP policy says you can. That's the whole point!

Gaaaargh! I wish I could find the link to the SNP CNP or whatever I was reading!

The CAB link is really useful, this section is also crucial:

"The legal test is that you should look at the impact of your impairment without any medication or treatment. Treatment includes things like counselling as well as medication. For example if you have arthritis and use a walking stick, think about how hard it would be for you to walk without it.

If you have a sight impairment which can be cured by wearing glasses or contact lenses, you’ll need to think about how your day-to-day activities are affected when you’re wearing them.

Example
Tom has type 1 diabetes. He has daily insulin injections which mean he doesn’t usually have any symptoms.

He's disabled because without the injections the diabetes would have a substantial long-term adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities. He would collapse and the condition is likely to recur."

So even a well-managed disability is still a disability legally, if you have one it just depends on whether you want to identify as such.

Well it's been a case of self declaring for a long time now, which was generally harmless and provided dignity to people with disabilities. Obviously if further medical information was required for scenarios such as particular adjustments at work or benefits, then that would happen. But I'm hardly surprised that this has turned into a self identifying thing now, everything bloody else has. And no you can't identify as disabled if you're not, and to do so is pretty shit for those who do have genuine disabilities.

Is this about being able to claim PIP? I can work but I would say I would probably qualify for a blue badge and definitely consider myself mobility impaired. Couldn’t walk last week due to knee collapsing following a major accident some years ago. I can’t get in or out of the car if I can’t fully open the door, but I can (mostly) drive ok. Am I allowed to say disabled? I know someone who has a blue badge because he has difficulty getting in and out of the car. (There’s probably more to it than that, just I was told to apply because the issue is similar)

Well, it's either self-identify or other-identify. Either I say what my ethnicity and disabilities are and I'm trusted to tell the truth, or someone else determines those and it would have to be decided what evidence they'd have to judge that on.

Most tickbox exercises are the former. I have had the odd situation of a HCP decided I'd chosen the wrong answers for my and my child's ethnicity which was a whole lot of no fun, but generally we're allowed to tick our own. That's self-identifying.

Sometimes things are other-identified. Whether this should be, I can see arguments for either side, but we can't ignore that largely in day-to-day life, outside of things being certified by professions, most demographic information is self-identified, for better or for worse, because the alternative is setting up a system for others to verify us which gets complicated fast.

We already have that, technically, for sex even if it gets ignored sometimes, we have it for nationalities, and we can for some disabilities though not all (we don't usually get paperwork with our diagnosis, medical records can be harder to get than they should and I and many others I know have been misdiagnosed and/or had doctors go that it's likely X, but not put us forward for the diagnostic test because they don't think it's worth it when nothing treatment-wise will change. A doctor said it's likely that, I guess I can count it as a diagnosis, but that's pretty debatable). The UK doesn't have anything 'official' for ethnicity so that one would be difficult to force someone to prove.

to someone reasonably unbiased, it would seem quite natural to discuss different issues of discrimination and representation in the same meeting and from the same context, wouldn't it?
You don't seem reasonably unbiased. You seem either uninformed about the meeting or wedded to a particular view of it contrary to what actually took place.
The language of 'self-identifying' is an issue. Lots of people with disabilities don't identify as disabled. And some people with conditions not normally classed as disabilities do 'identify' as disabled.

The entire point of positive discrimination is to ensure under-represented groups are given access. Wrapping it up in identity politics obscures that intention and it isn't unintentional. It's entirely the point in the context of the SNP meeting.

Declaring a disability might have been a better phrase.

Adhering to the legal advice concerning how best to forward positive representation would have been even better.

As it is, they've ended up discriminating against disabled people in certain lists; discriminating against BAME in other lists; and discriminating against all other protected characteristics in every list.

Obviously it's possible someone with no disability would self identify as disabled to gain an advantage but I imagine that wouldn't pay off when you're faced with voters. Although I could be wrong!

I don’t really see any option other than to self identify as disabled because I have no way of accessing any independent test that would give me a certificate.

I think there are instances where this may be beneficial to people that perhaps haven’t been able to get a diagnosis, take for example Autism. They may meet the criteria in most areas, but not enough to get an actual diagnosis

If you don't meet the criteria for a diagnosis of autism, that can be because you aren't autistic.

I have several disabilities. One of which is named in the Equalities Act.

I don't consider myself disabled because of these.

I do however feel very disabled due to anxiety.

The Equality Act sets this out really well:

It says you're disabled if: you have a physical or mental impairment. that impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

To self identify would enable people who 'feel' disabled but don't meet the above criteria to identify in to the protected characteristic.

You don't need a diagnosis to be acknowledged unde the DDA for work/equality purposes. Just an assessment of impact and likely adjustments needed.

This whole issue seems to have had precious little to do with genuine concern for better representation of people with disabilities and more to do with controlling candidates (and ousting some existing). Much the same game was played by momentum in local Labour parties in England.

This is similar to the issue the paralympics have with competitors with a functional
disorder- that is, symptoms with no demonstrable biological cause and which variable & inconsistent with a know physical disease process (which could range from tremor to paralysis to weakness). Is it fair for someone with a psychological cause for their symptoms & no fixed physical limitations to compete against someone who has fixed (as in unchanging) physical limitations? All very controversial!

I have only very recently started calling myself disabled. I have RA and for a long time I didnt want to accept it I suppose. I have now. If you saw me stood in front of you would wouldn't think I was. Not until you asked me to walk or pick something up anyway.

If people choose to self identify as anything, then they can do. But until it is legally and medically recognised they won't get much out of a self diagnosis / realisation.

@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.

I think you've got that the wrong way round - the trans lobby nicked quite a bit of their approach from disability activism, in particular self-identification and the social model (it is not the person who is disabled, it is the world around them that is disabling).

Self identification of disability in the absence of a diagnosis is perfectly legitimate - the question of whether someone is disabled is whether they have a physical or mental impairment causing a substantial & long term effect on ability to do daily activities. A person may be able to evidence that even while professionals are undecided over what their actual diagnosis should be.

But in most situations you are not going to be legally identified.

All you can do as read the criteria set out in law, decide if it applies to you, and self identify if it does.

@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.

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

Yes, it really is that simple.

The whole issue with being able to 'self identify' is that people will be able to self-identify as something when they are plainly not.

I am not disabled. But under these stupid rules I would be able to self-identify as a disabled person if I felt like it, and then kick up a stink if I'm discriminated against for any reason.