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?

When I initially saw the thread I immediately thought you weren’t being unreasonable, but actually on deeper thinking as a result of the many posts on this thread I have changed my view.

Sometimes we just have to trust people to do the right thing.

@SarahAndQuack

THANK YOU. Honestly the number of people who think everything is about those evil transfolk out to get them is exasperating

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

I'd truly love this to be the case, but it's massively naive to think this way.

This IS about gender issues. Look at the context of who will benefit from this and what they are trying to achieve. It won't have the effect of getting excellent-but-thus-far-overlooked minority candidates into parliament. It just won't.

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

But if you want to access a limited benefit, afforded to support disabled people, then you do have to provide evidence.

I don't need a certificate to ask someone if could sit down, I sure as hell do if I want access to restricted parking or limited access items.

Is there a list of illnesses or conditions that count as disabilities?

There can't be as it often depends on severity.

Is is defined by how hard you find it to cope in an equal footing with others? Because that's often about the adaptations provided as much as the disability.

Is it down to whether you qualify for a certain benefit? Because you often have to be much, much more severely disabled than 'disabled' to qualify and the people who assess this are not to be trusted.

Or is it down to how 'sick' you are? Because many disabled people are healthy, functioning people. At the same time, many people who do not look disabled at all live with life altering limitations.

[quote toconclude]@SarahAndQuack

THANK YOU. Honestly the number of people who think everything is about those evil transfolk out to get them is exasperating[/quote]
You are missing the context behind this thread. Nothing to do with 'transfolk' (whatever the hell they may be) but about women speaking out about the encroachment on their legal rights. Some people think it's about trans rights. It isn't because happily, trans people have every single right they need in the UK. This is about women's rights.

In my experience, the term 'self-identify' can have a different connotation within disability communities than it has in others. Firstly, for many people with hidden disabilities, diagnoses are inaccessible even if they're certain they have a condition. Diagnoses for things like autism, fibromyalgia or ME can take years for adults, especially women, and a lot of people find that the official words on their file aren't worth the time and effort of the diagnostic process. If people don't need the diagnosis for work or benefits, a lot of people don't seek it out. Some people may also choose to have diagnosed disabilities left off their medical record to avoid any disadvantages, something I was offered when I got diagnosed as autistic, meaning some disabled people don't have any certification.

There's also the fact that two people with exactly the same symptoms and the same diagnosis might identify differently. One deaf person might identify as disabled and one might not, the same is common amongst autistic people and people with visual impairment. I consider myself disabled because of my autism diagnosis, but another person who is objectively very similar to me might not see themselves as disabled. A lot of disabilities are comprised of spectrums of symptoms and severity, and whether or not people consider themselves disabled often depends on their position in life and how their condition affects them day-to-day.

If this was genuinely about increasing access, they wouldn't have decided that disabled people can't top the list in four regions; that BAME people can't top the list in a different four regions; and that people with any other protected characteristic aren't guaranteed representation on any list.

Yes, you do have to provide evidence for specific benefits. I currently have them but probably won’t in the future. I will still be disabled under the law.

I don’t think it is a good use of anyone’s time for me to have to go through an invasive capability assessment just so that I can the disabled box on job interview forms.

And sometimes depending on the environment a disability may not be an issue or at all relevant.

Ds has a long list of different disabilities but they aren’t all always relevant - so if we need an access pass for an attraction then only the autism is relevant because that’s why we need the adjustment. His other disabilities aren’t relevant to the situation.

It’s certainly complex and there will be times when evidence is required to show the need for the adjustment but when it comes to employment issues then that extra level of looking at reasonable adjustments should come after the job offer and be done via tne right channels. When applying for a job you shouldn’t need to provide evidence

YABU - you can self identify as a female in Scotland even with having no female characteristics (I.e, dna, any kind of hormone treatment etc). If you can self identify as whatever sex you want, you can self identify as disabled. You can also self identify as being a camel. Doesn’t mean you are a female, disabled or a camel but you can sure as heck force others to say you are.

There are only 3 or 4 conditions which, I believe, automatically class you as disabled. Otherwise, the EA2010 looks at whether your condition(s) affect your ability to carry out day to day living tasks.

Personally, I don't like the word 'identify' and think it should be replaced with 'consider.' Identify is now linked with trans people and is open to abuse.

I self identify as gender critical and really think the women’s rights are currently at risk.

But objecting to self identification when it comes to disability completely misunderstands the nature of a broad spectrum of disabilities and all the gaps in treatment, documentation and support that exist.

I think self identifying as disabled and self diagnosis are not helpful to anyone in anyway.

Yes, you do have to provide evidence for specific benefits. I currently have them but probably won’t in the future. I will still be disabled under the law.

I also have them. I don't need to them to tick a box on a job application which simply alerts to the need for eg an accessible or step free entrance. I certainly do if I'm to be prioritised over any other group for the job.

Some benefits eg a seat on a train are trivial enough that if a few people abuse the courtesy offer then it doesn't stop me accessing a seat. However other benefits (such as priority for a sought after safe seat) do come at a cost to others and therefore should be assessed fairly.

Self-identify just means you haven't had to provide evidence upfront. There can be objective criteria, but you haven't been asked to provide it and are trusted to have told the truth until there is evidence to the contrary.

What objective paperwork would people like for ethnicity? What you look like doesn't count as official documentation.

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?

In the US, individual indigenous nations decide now, just like any other nation decides the criteria for citizenship. That does not automatically mean 'preferential treatment' (not sure what treatment you're talking about, but not all American Indigenous nations are federally recognized anyways). Even though not everywhere requires proof of enrollment, random people making a claim doesn't really do much without that.

Blood quantum - which is what you're talking about and a very controversial topic as it's what governments applied to many nations (and was largely done by self-identification at the time) - is still in use by many, others use old tribal rolls instead, some use both, and they can use whichever they want. Don't know any that use hardship as a defining criteria, but then that's not the defining characteristic of any Indigenous culture. There is a lot more to us than that.

I don't need a certificate to ask someone if could sit down, I sure as hell do if I want access to restricted parking or limited access items.

Blue Badges, yes.

RADAR keys, which are often thought of as a limited access item - no, anyone can get one, no one asks for any evidence. It's generally considered more a detriment to put in more hoops there, or with mobility device use...

On many job applications you get a guaranteed interview if you are disabled and meet all the essential criteria.

You are therefore getting access to something that is not available to all applicants.

It is unworkable for all disabled people to provide evidence of disability for those purposes.

Look at how many people can’t get access to a clinical psychologist to get a specific mental health diagnosis and have to make do with a generic one from a gp, even though a specific one would allow access to better treatment. Instead they get sent to see iapt practioners who aren’t qualified to diagnose.

We can’t afford to certify people in ways that would aid their treatment, so we certainly can’t afford to send them for pointless tests just so they can get a certificate because some people don’t like the phrase ‘self-identify.’

@5zeds

I think self identifying as disabled and self diagnosis are not helpful to anyone in anyway.

Agree about self diagnosis (although I understand why people do it)

But only an individual knows if they are disabled in a lot of cases. It isn’t always as simple as the diganosis means disability. For most people asthma wouldn’t be a disability in most environments, but for some people like DS it is very much a disability.

It’s not a black and white area

Why not just say "if you have a disability"? No need to bring "self-identify" into it, which just makes it sound like anyone can decide to describe themself as disabled.

@Spero

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 .

Presumably you ds has asthma so severely it IS disabling just as I am short sighted but my friends eyesight is so poor she is disabled by it. The severity surely is diagnosable.

@TheMobileSiteMadeMeSignup

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.

I think this is why DLA/PIP awards are often the preferred proof of disability.

DLA/PIP is based on how your condition affects your day to day activities and not based on your diagnosis. So it’s a measure of actual impairment.

I had PIP a full two years before I had a diagnosis. In fact it was the reason I went ahead with the PIP claim. I needed proof of disability for other things.

The problem is it’s not always possible to even get the PIP you should qualify for.

The idea of identity and disability predates identity politics. It is used to allow people who might be considered disabled to identify out of the category. This is important as disability is context dependent (I have a condition that entitles me to a radar key/disabled toilets but not to a blue badge, for example). It also allows it to consider conditions that fluctuate.

The idea of identifying into a category to which you don't realistically belong, is what is new. This directional issue should not mean disabled people have to return to being classified such by someone else.

In years gone by, many people who rightfully could have accessed support didn't because they were ashamed or worried about being discriminated against for their disability or ethnicity. And no one would pretend that they had a condition or ethnicity they didn't in order to access things.

There have always been some people who have exploited positive discrimination for their own ends but the numbers of those people were typically small enough not to impact on the people who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of positive discrimination.

Now we live in a world where self-identifying as more victimised as the next person is considered perfectly acceptable (unless it's race - cultural appropriation is a no no).

What will inevitably happen is that the authorities who support people who are discriminated against because of their disability will change the rules to insist that there is a diagnosis. And that the bar in terms of impact is set much higher.

Self identification is an individualistic Thatcherite movement which destroys the fabric of society

The specifics of asthma can be recorded, but whether it is severe is going to depend on what criteria are required for the particular purposes.

Look at the pandemic. They decided who was in the vulnerable group and who was in the shielding group based on which particular medications you were prescribed, and they changed the medication list part way through the pandemic, so some asthmatics moved out of the shielding group.

Whether or not you are disabled as an asthmatic is going to vary under the law based on the requirements of your job. There isn’t a simple yes/no category that you can put people in.

And while it make not be as obvious and permanent as a spinal injury, asthma kills many people.