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?

@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.

You do realise the threshold is very high for getting pip. It’s not just a phone call away. I haven’t applied as the process is too daunting.

Disability has become a meaningless term. Self identification and 'expanding the bandwidth' in order to boost disability stats to meet targets has seen to that.

And DLA and PIP becomes ever harder to get because of it.

@corythatwas

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.

Posters are mentioning transpeople because the point of the meeting was supposed to be to agree a definition of transphobia. Also, because at least one of the people who voted (against legal advice) for the self-identify as BAME/disabled system (that discriminates against both BAME and disabled people if they don't live in the right area) also comes under the very broad trans umbrella. It's not unrelated. The changes have been pushed through to try to stop gender critical politicians from standing, and to allow people who 'self-identify' to take their places.

I'm quite surprised to find that I think you can self identifiy as disabled. Not that a perfectly healthy person can say they're disabled and that's accepted, but people with the same diagnosed condition may self identify in different ways.

I have autism and to me that means I'm disabled. There are lots of things in life that I want to do or achieve but I'm not able to because of my condition, ergo I'm disabled. My DD also has autism but she absolutely would not accept that she is disabled by it. To her, she just has a very different skill set. There are things she can't do but there are things she can do, a lot better than someone without her condition. And she lives the life she wants to live.

I don't think you should be able to self-identify as a woman/disabled/BAME. But if we allow men to self identify as women logic dictates that anyone should be allowed to self-identify as having any characteristics they "feel" they have - age/race/gender/disability/there is no end to the possibility which is why we need to move back to fact rather than "feeings" when making and applying law/rules/policy etc.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here. Self identifying doesn’t mean it is about your feelings, or isn’t based on objective criteria, or says something about your psychological sense of self.

Self identifying in a disability context is where you claim something because there isn’t an official certification of disability.

I don’t self identify as female. It is officially documented on my birth certificate.
I don’t self identify as British. It is officially documented on my passport.
I don’t self identify as asthmatic. It is in my medical records.
I do self identify as disabled because there is no official document available to me, so based on self application of the objective criteria, I self identify as disabled. Self identification is an accurate description of what is happening here. A less contentious phrase often used in job application questions is that I consider myself to be disabled.

So a bit like self-certifying illness, when you have one or two days off work. You are ill, you're just not bothering a doctor to provide you with a certificate.

I think the important point here is that being able to appropriate a disability in this instance is a a way of gaining an advantage in an attempt to become a MSP. .
This is a cynical political manoeu vre to oust some female politicians who are resisting the woke wing of the party.
Appropriating disability is despicable.

I actually think race is more complex, but in the uk less so with self identification. In the US and Australia people can classify as indigenous even if it was one person in their family tree five generations or more ago which I always find bizarre as that person would presumably not have experienced any discrimination due to their race that far removed from that ancestor, so why should they get preferential treatment? Disability I think there is more of an argument for self identification as lots of things don’t get diagnosed for ages that are still disabling.

If people want to stop self identification, a test would have to be introduced. Given the huge number of people who meet the equality act criteria for disability, the cost of administering this test would be enormous. I fail to see how the administration of such a test would actually make the lives of disabled people any better.

Disability =/= PIP or similar that requires a disability to be other-identified. People really need to stop assuming the former automatically leads to the latter.

Some people's medical notes are well-evidenced. Some people's aren't. That's why there are various organizations with experts to help people gather documentation when it's required to be other-identified, such as PIP and some work places. Do we want the SNP is require that level of certification?

I've had diagnosis told to me, in front of others, that was never written in my notes, and by another professional digging through, it was found over 5 years later to not match the medical information in my notes. I've had another that's "likely", but they decided after the heart test for anything more serious that that was enough and so I've not had the actual diagnostic test. I've been told to follow the guidance on it, but whether I have a diagnosis down in the records, no idea.

I live in a home with 3 disabled adults, and none of us have had a job that required medical evidence for reasonable adjustments in work. Others require a lot. It depends on a lot of factor, but by and large, a lot of it doesn't involve evidence.

Yes, the whole trans debate has somewhat mucked up the concept, but self-identify only means that you state your demographics and we trust you unless evidence otherwise comes up. Little to do with feelings, but the fact things like ethnicity and disability can be complicated. Other-identified means you need evidence to prove it upfront before we'll believe you. Do we want the SNP to require evidence for these things, cause in official capacities, it's really difficult to prove ethnicity. Like, do I give a family tree and family photos to prove I'm mixed ethnicity?

I think Dd is disabled. She has fibromyalgia, EDS and POTS. It affects her physically, some days very badly. But she isn’t officially disabled, she’s never applied to be labelled so...she doesn’t need PIP.

We did once apply to the council for a blue badge and filled out the crazy long form, sent scans of all hospital letters with diagnosis and they turned her down saying she hadn’t supplied any evidence. She can be arse to try again. 🤷‍♀️

For anyone interested in some analysis of the context of this policy, the Wings Over Scotland blog is pretty interesting. My own view is that it is a massively cynical move by a group of politicians absolutely desperate to push their own agenda at any cost. Ask yourself who will benefit from this policy and the context starts to take shape.

wingsoverscotland.com/the-death-wish/

My former partner had a blue badge but a blue badge still doesn’t count as an official certification that you are disabled. He would still have to self identify on work application forms.

@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?

There is a legal test for what amounts to a disability in the Equality Act and plenty of case law on how that should be interpreted. That should be the test - self-identifying as “disabled” risks undermining the hard won protections of those covered by the EA.

I was disabled from conception. My left leg didn't grow. I wear a prosthesis. I can no more 'identify' into or out of this than I can 'identify' into or out of being female.

I hope this whole rotten edifice falls soon before it drives me mad with rage and frustration .

@SushiSoozie

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.

Yes, but equally it doesn’t meet you don’t have have difficulties either, that negatively impact your life.

They have a cut off point for everything and autism isn’t something that is always easy to identify. It presents differently in different people. They may go on to get a diagnosis years later after struggling on for years.

Another example would be someone with a low IQ score of say 73. Technically they couldn’t generally be diagnosed as having a ‘Learning Disability’, because their IQ score would be deemed too high (even if they had significant deficits in adaptive behaviours)

I read something interesting a few years back about a young lady who scored ‘too high’ in an IQ test so was left to it, but she really struggled living independently and having a baby etc. The whole case was that whilst she didn’t have diagnosis, she’s absolutely needed support and was someone that fell through the cracks.

For lots of people disability depends on the situation you are in. I have a hearing loss, but because I wear hearing aids it does not usually affect me most of the time. But.. no available alarm clock will wake me up (I don't sleep with my hearing aids in), it is very doubtful that I would wake if the smoke alarm went off at night and at the moment I can't always understand people talking to me if they are wearing a mask. Am I disabled or not? At the moment I think that the balance has tipped in favour of it being a yes. A points in the past I have said I am not disabled (my hearing has not worsened significantly, but circumstances have changed).

It has always been that it is up to the person to define once something has reached a threshold where something impacts their daily life significantly. People have been self defining as disabled (or not) for decades.

It is great that the SNP want to get a more diverse range of people as MPs. I suspect that ultimately in almost all cases it will be people that they would have chosen anyway but maybe some of these people will open up about their daily struggles and issues that otherwise would be ignored will be put on the agenda.

Self identifying doesn’t mean it is about your feelings, or isn’t based on objective criteria, or says something about your psychological sense of self
Of course it does. That’s exactly what it means. There are no objective criteria to say you are a certain thing, but you feel that you are, so therefore you are.

This brings to mind the Dutch man who self identified as 20 years younger. He said he didn’t feel comfortable with the date on his birth certificate, it didn’t reflect his emotional state or his physical condition, and it made both online dating and finding employment more difficult for him. I totally support him - if you allow one person to self identify then you have to allow everyone to do so.

I think the question 'do you consider yourself as having a disability' is better. Which is defined as a long-term condition that limits your day to day activities. Or at least is for any time I have been asked.

Personally I object to closed lists for PR voting. Which is what the policy that the SNP is using it for. Most of the closed lists I see have a man at the top of them. There are also factors in representation I want to consider such as views on non-party issues or personal conduct that this prevents.

@Stripesnomore

If people want to stop self identification, a test would have to be introduced. Given the huge number of people who meet the equality act criteria for disability, the cost of administering this test would be enormous. I fail to see how the administration of such a test would actually make the lives of disabled people any better.

I think most people are discussing it in relation to the SNP as stated in the OP. In that case it only affects people who self-identify as disabled and want to stand as first-place candidates on SNP regional lists in four specified areas.

‘There is a legal test for what amounts to a disability in the Equality Act and plenty of case law on how that should be interpreted. That should be the test - self-identifying as “disabled” risks undermining the hard won protections of those covered by the EA.’

But in everyday situations where you have to declare whether or not you are disabled, there isn’t access to a legal test. Self identification is the only option.

@covidaintacrime

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.

Absolutely agree

I occasionally self identify as disabled if it relates to my condition. 99% of the time it makes no difference to my daily life but there are a few things I can't do- and so identify as disabled to enable adjustments to be made.

Glen chase, but there are objective criteria about what constitutes a disability in U.K. law.