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?

You don't get a letter from the doctor that says "you are a disabled person now"

Just as a point of interest, my medical notes are topped with a note that I'm physically disabled. And when I became disabled and had to go through HR etc to sort employment conditions, it involved going through occupational health,, who examined medical records, and a formal letter confirming that I met the legal threshold of disability for legal protections under the Equality Act and required duties from employers accordingly.

It very much is evidenced.

@AubergineDream

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.

Exactly this. There is no set condition of 'disability' - many invisible disabilities, many disabilities of varying degrees of intensity with varying impact. My MIL has a 'disability' in that she can't use her left arm - it means certain tasks are impossible for her to do and she can't drive.

Where are the lines? Where do you draw them? What qualifies someone as able bodied?

@tabulahrasa

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.

Very well said. I am disabled. Because my condition is fluctuating and not visible I am disbelieved at times. I told a woman the other day I’m disabled. I was walking the dogs a few hundred metres very slowly and she scoffed (🙄) until I explained further. Some days I can barely walk and others I could walk a relatively good distance. I qualify for a BB. It was actually a poster on here, who told me I’m disabled as I didn’t really see it because of the stigma against chronic fatigue / ME / fibro. I’ve since had physical, recognised ailments needing surgery so that’s “real” 🙄....

I’m a bit confused as exactly to what you mean @GCautist, if it is this, YANBU. But I also think some people don’t wish to be seen as disabled as they manage whatever condition they have and don’t find it a hindrance or disabling. That is an opt out of disability, isn’t it?

I wouldn't use the term self identify, state or declare are the only expressions you need as in candidates who declare they are disabled. It's important that drs don't need to be involved because in some cases people haven't bothered with formal diagnosis, particularly prevalent among adult females with autism as they typically were overlooked as children and what is the point of tests as an adult???

This move was designed not to promote the rights of people with disabilities but for self-interested would-be politicos. Its main aim is to eradicate women, mainly gender-critical women who are trying to protect the sex based rights of girls and women, such as Joan McAlpine.
An absolute embarrassment for the SNP and Scottish politics.

Much more information here for anyone interested:

twitter.com/ForwomenScot?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Just ridiculous wording. You are either disabled or you or not. Hidden or visible, you are still disabled!

I have had occupational health letters discussing my medical conditions. I have official diagnoses. I am covered by the equality act. I have been found to have limited capability for work by the DWP.

At no point did anyone give me any official label of ‘disabled.’

If everyone is disabled, then there's no need for any support from the welfare state, is there ?

That's where this is all going.

Only so much PIP to go around. The more that claim it, the less it will be.

Benefits based on disabilities aren’t based on self identification. Different benefits are available based on assessment of your specific medical conditions.

@Janegrey333 but no one has told me I am disabled. I have been diagnosed with RA, is that the same thing?

I haven't time to read the whole thread as am cooking at same time so feel free to tell me to fuck off.
That said the professional victims on twitter love to claim they have autism it's in loads of profiles along with creepy anime profile pics usually with the caveat of self diagnosis. It's an excuse incase people challenge them on being a dick.
But ofc this is one of those it never happens situations.

Fyi an autism diagnosis is long and drawn out you may need to challenge things but if you have autism it will be picked up by the process.

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

So if your condition hasn't been recognised it doesn't exist.

Also, can we please remember that a doctor diagnoses a condition, not a disability. Both my children have the same condition. One of them is not affected at all: he can do anything other healthy young men of his age can do. The other suffers chronic pain, has been a wheelchair user on and off, and has a range of co-morbidities. A doctor can't look at some kind of test result and decide which one is which- the only way they can know is by asking them.

Also, can we get through one thread about disability or identity without taking another swipe at trans people? Here we're not even discussing this as a topic in its own right, we're just sneering at them for the sake of it.

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

It can be, or it can be based on systemic barriers within your pursuit of a diagnosis. E.g. physical pain disorders are underdiagnosed in women (especially BAME women) as well as conditions like autism. Providing you have a good understanding of yourself and the condition, if it seems to click (e.g. "I have most / all symptoms on the list of recognised symptoms and this affects me strongly) then a diagnosis doesn't transform you from a non-disabled person to a disabled one.

People are disabled even prior to getting diagnoses, that's how they get the diagnoses.

I discovered recently that I would be entitled to tick the box for the Guaranteed Interview Scheme for Civil Service job applications - I have had depression for 10+ years, it has in the past interfered with my ability to work or look after myself, and it is listed as one of the impairments on their definitions page. So I've never been diagnosed as "disabled", but I do have a condition that some may consider a disability.

However, I don't feel that I am really entitled to identify as disabled, and if I were to tick that box and get a job through that scheme, I don't think my employment would bring the diversity of experience or provide more representation for marginalised groups that these schemes are supposed to provide. I would hope that the wording allows enough flexibility to enable those who would benefit from such a scheme to make use of it, but it requires everyone to use it in good faith, and I'm not confident of that happening.

Just asked my disabled ds about this wording.

His reply "disability isn't my identity, it doesn't define who I am. I am disabled because I have a disability. How do you identify as that? It's just part of who I am. I identify as me"

I do understand the "self identifying" thing in terms of disability to a certain degree, because being disabled is way more complex than I ever imagined. I have a disease that affects my mobility and I have good days and bad days. I currently am having more good than bad, and on the good days don't feel disabled at all (at least not until I bend down on my knees and get stuck!). Getting diagnosed was a struggle, and once I had the diagnosis, it took me a long time to accept I could use the label of "disabled" if I wanted to. It's not like we get given a special certificate to say "you're disabled now", you just sort of figure it out, and then have the inner turmoil of "am I disabled enough to call myself disabled?" "Am I just lazy?" And (after years of pushing for a diagnosis) "is anything really wrong with me or is this all in my head?".

But... I still think it's ridiculous and annoying to word it in the language of "identifying".
Like I'd rather say "I am autistic" (I am, but that's not the disease I mentioned earlier) than "I identify as autistic". Or "I'm white" not "I identify as white". "I identify as 33". It's just a weird way to phrase things isn't it? You either are, or you're not. Even if you're like me and not obviously visibly disabled, I/you still am/are.

There's just something about "identifying as" that gets my back up. I miss the days when people could just "be", rather than "identify as".

I totally support this initiative. If you can self identify as female then you can also self identify as male, or black, or gay, or disabled, or anything else. Because it’s how you FEEL that matters - objective reality has nothing to do with it.

Fyi an autism diagnosis is long and drawn out you may need to challenge things but if you have autism it will be picked up by the process.

No, it often isn't "picked up by the process".

Yes, I think it more likely that the trans community has picked up this language from disabled people rather than the other way round.

My own understanding of self id in this context is that it is up to each individual to assess their own situation against the definition and then id accordingly. So it's not so much you can identify as being a disabled person just because you feel you are, or want to be, it is more that it is up to each person to assess their own situation rather than having to disclose medical or other personal details in order to be recognised as being a disabled person.

Can people identify out of being disabled? Well, you can't change how others see you so it might well be that someone doesn't see themselves as being disabled but others do. I know when my gran used a wheelchair towards the end of her life she didn't identify as a disabled person, but what did other people think when they saw her, I wonder? How did it affect how they treated her? I have known blind people who don't feel they can use the accessible loos 'because I'm not disabled'. I have known people who identify as being a disabled person due to having diabetes and I have known people with dyslexia refuse to tick that box. So I think it is complicated but I don't think self id in this context is about people choosing to identify into disability, more about people being the experts in their own lives. However, I can see how if someone should choose to manipulate this approach they could but I'm not entirely sure what can be done about that.

I have a friend with upper limb differences who sometimes identifies as disabled and not other times.
She has no mobility issues and has no problems at all in her highly qualified professional job so doesn’t tend to mention it generally.

But she wouldn’t be able to drive a normal car and could never do a production line job or waitressing for example. If a job asks for a driving license but doesn’t actually require driving and could be done by using public transport and taxis she would bring up the equality act and identify herself as officially disabled (which she is).

Ahhh, I've just 'got' this from reading your OP.

It is indeed poor and confusing wording, that invites thoughts of people choosing to identify into things where they do not obviously belong and where others might not perceive them as belonging.

Whereas, in this case, it is about people choosing or not choosing to adopt something that they are and that everyone else would agree that they are, as part of their identity.

So people can 'have a disability' but not identify as disabled. They might go with 'differently abled' or adapt and view themselves as just another version of 'normal', rejecting any 'ableist' label entirely.

So, no you can't identify into or out of having a disability, unless you have a condition widely considered to be a disability. In which case you may be in a position to choose whether or not you view yourself as 'disabled'.

So yes, 'declare yourself disabled' makes a lot more sense (and gets away from mis-association with more contentious 'identify as' scenarios).

@SerendipityJane

If everyone is disabled, then there's no need for any support from the welfare state, is there ?

That's where this is all going.

Only so much PIP to go around. The more that claim it, the less it will be.

Not everyone with a disability needs or wants support from the welfare state. When I was at my absolute worst, I needed some reasonable adjustments (which didn't cost my employer anything) but I didn't need any funding/financial support.

@OldGreyBoots

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.

I think this is really interesting because replace the diabetes with severe myopia and change the sentence

'He's disabled because without the glasses the myopia would have a substantial long-term adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities'.

By that reckoning anyone who is very shortsighted is disabled!

Similarly, I am a woman. I do not identify as a woman, I don't need to, I just am one. A lot of the time it's not very relevant and I'd rather be viewed as 'just another person / as good and relevant as any other person'. I could declare myself to be a woman though, if it were relevant.

Not everyone with a disability needs or wants support from the welfare state.

Good job too, really.