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?

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

Well said.

Conversation can run on any basis, but society must run on proof.

Self-identify isn't the same as self-diagnose.

I have a medically diagnosed chronic illness. I couldn't have diagnosed myself with this illness - far too many blood tests and scans involved for that!

I take a couple of pills every day, but there is no other impact on my daily life. According to definition on the CAB link above, I have a disability, but I don't identify as disabled and would never put it on a form.

When I was first diagnosed, and the meds I'm now on hadn't even been licenced yet, it had a massive impact. I definitely considered myself disabled.

Self-identify isn't the same as self-diagnose. well obviously or wit wouldn’t be necessary to use different words.

It backfires.

In the US you don’t have to provide proof of disability. In dIsneyworld, saying you had a party member with autism (difficulty queueing) afforded the chance to go to the front of the queue. Given that queues (in normal times) could be four hours long (!) you can see how CFs cheated.

What happened? Disneyworld, quite understandably, had to deal with this so amended their adjustment to say that you still had to “queue” for the same time as others, but could do it virtually, as in go off and come back at the appointed time. Now, Disney is noted for their excellent disability-friendliness, so they didn’t do this lightly. But they had to deal with (large) numbers taking the piss, and who could not legally be challenged.

So, in summary, this SNP policy is only going to harm one group of people: the genuine.

@VestaTilley

YANBU. It’s ludicrous.

But it’s ludicrous for the same reason that you can’t identify as another race or sex. It’s the logical conclusion of telling people for years that you can change sex. If you can change that, then why not anything else? That’s what people will conclude anyway.

It’s both offensive and preposterous.

This.

If you can say you are a different sex and this is socially acceptable, why does the same society say we cannot change race or identify as disabled?!

This really is where I struggle on transgender. If we can accept one thing, why can we not accept another?

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

Untrue. I very clearly have Asperger's syndrome (or just autism as people today prefer to label it.) I was too old to get diagnosed at school - I remember school therapists just gazing at me in confusion as to why I was practically non-verbal and couldn't make eye contact, and the conclusion was that I was "odd". Asperger's started to become known about just a few years later.

Both of my children have ASD's, as do several other relatives. I asked my GP if I could be assessed and he said no, that I was clearly doing perfectly well in life - except that I had no job and no friends because socializing is so problematic for me.

So I privately self-identify as autistic because it's all I can do.

But I'm clearly not it?

I see it as an issue of language. I take things very literally so asked if I self identify as disabled I’d say no because it’s not part of my identity . Asked am I disabled I’d say yes. It’s a subtle difference but the wording changes the meaning.

In regards to the particular political issue with MSPs fast tracked to the top of proportional representation list places, I read someone on Twitter say to get any financial support or money to pay for social supports you have to provide pages of evidence to show how you meet the criteria of disabled enough and even at that they want more info so you have to go for an in humane assessment. This can be studying (disabled students allowance), welfare benefits and social Security (such as esa/uc/pip) asking for self directed support payments to get a personal assistant, even an OT for a handrail in your bathroom needs to assess you and whether you should pay. They all require evidence. You don’t get public money on self declaration. An MSP is paid £64,000 a year of public money and if disabled people need to provide evidence for the pittance benefit of £5000 a year why should an MSP relying on their disabled status to get them to the top of the job queue not be required to some degree to provide evidence?

I’m don’t entirely I agree with that analogy I shared above but I get the point too. To be honest I’m sat on the fence and for every good argument I read about one side I read a good argument for the other.

I do feel uncomfortable about the language used though.

In terms of disability, you have to self identify. There is no piece of paper which declares you 'disabled'. Many with a disability get DLA or PIP, but many don't. Likewise, not everyone with the same diagnoses is equally affected, e.g. some people with autism need lifelong 24/7 care and can never be independent, whilst others have careers, family life independence and see their ASD as neurological difference, not a disability. I have severe endometriosis but I am relatively pain free whilst my friend with the same diagnosis is bed bound a lot of the time.

It's just not black and white. Disability is defined in the UK by the Equality Act 2010 which statea

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.

so it's clear in a why but murky in others. Who other than the person affected is to decide if they are disabled by that definition.

not everyone as a certain diagnosis. PP said you have a disabily as you have been identified as having one. Who decided that? Going back to my example, there are individuals who have an autism or an endometriosis diagnosis. But it is a a disability diagnosis. The way it affects someone make it a diagnoses or not in some cases.

My 15 year old Dd had an unidentified (covid??) virus which led to her having nearly 200 seizures last year. We couldn’t apply for a disabled badge in our county as she isn’t classed as disabled until she has had seizures for two years. It would really help if we could have parked closer to places so she could be safer whilst having a seizure. She doesn’t want to be labelled but it’s about being practical.

She doesn’t want to be labelled but it’s about being practical.

I agree with her. Tell her from me (3x her age) that you just do the disability admin purely to reduce the social disadvantages caused by your condition, but you remain you and not to take any descriptor to heart or feel limited.

I know people who have hearing loss but do not identify as disabled

I feel like that's a bit like saying "I know fat people who don't identify as being overweight".

It's almost a "well it doesn't really matter what you identify as... you fit the definition."

I can't just decide tomorrow that I don't want to identify as being white anymore. Or 5 foot 3 inches. Or an Aries. I can reject all of those labels, and I can also reject any support that would be offered to white Aries who are 5'3", but at the end of the day that's what I am 🤷🏻‍♀️.

@WeLikeTheStock You would cause huge offence if you said that to the wrong person, and you’ve misunderstood it.

Many deaf people consider themselves part of community rather than disabled. The same is true of many neurodivergent people. They consider themselves different rather than impaired.

Besides which, identifying out of a disabling identity doesn’t cause problems to society, that identifying IN to a disabled identity does.

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.

I might be able to identify into a slot to get the interview but at the point of taking up the job it would be normal to see OH or similar to assess relevant adjustments to be made to protect both employer and employee. Normally this includes OH reference to medical/relevant cliniician records, sufficient to do their job. At that point the lack of any history of disability/medical or other condition is going to become pretty obvious.

As someone upthread states - when people abuse it the bar is set higher for actually eligible people so its not in our interest to make it easy to abuse where the benefit is something of very limited availability.

RickiTarr thank you- I may have a tear in my eye

WeLikeTheStock

Call me disabled and I'd take my leg off and hit you with it.

@5zeds

Self-identify isn't the same as self-diagnose. well obviously or wit wouldn’t be necessary to use different words.

Thanks for the sarcasm.

Several posters on the thread had been using the terms interchangeably.

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.

We've managed for a very long time with the question 'do you consider yourself to have a disability as defined by the equality act' rather making it another thing that people self identify as. I have a disability as defined by the equality act. I do not however self identify as someone who has a disability. It's not a feeling. It's a fact. My medical records support that fact. How much that fact effects someones ability to do something however, is for them to decide in terms of declaring it or not. Which is how it should be. As it gives people control over not needing to declare it if they don't want to. But more crap which gives room for people to simply identify in to disability, even if the facts do not actually support this (there's a pattern here with this one) simply is not on.

But isn't this like claiming PIP? It isn't based on a diagnosis but on how your life is affected.

But isn't this like claiming PIP? It isn't based on a diagnosis but on how your life is affected

I think it would be very hard to get pip without a diagnosis to start with. And then following on from that, it would depend upon how much that diagnosis actually impacts on your life.

I have been disabled in the past. I was never labeled 'disabled' but had diagnoses of different illnesses. I still have these illnesses on record but they no longer affect me after having treatment, I am no longer disabled.

I did several times have to 'self identify' to get the support I needed from college and they just told me that if it affects my daily life then I needed to let them know. I honestly hated having to put it on the forms as I felt like an imposter but it was the truth. I did need the help and I couldn't get around easily.

I did several times have to 'self identify' to get the support I needed from college

It's not self identifying though is it. You're declaring a disability as defined by the equality act, and which you have medical evidence to back it up, should it be required. Words have meaning, and self identify is not the right meaning. We don't self identify as a person with a disability, we are a person with a recorded disability who has chosen or found it necessary to declare it.

Nobody is suggesting that people with no diagnosis of a medical condition go around self identifying as disabled.

Nor is it the case that occupational health need to access your medical records to organise reasonable adjustments at work. I have had multiple occupational health meetings and they have never requested access to any medical records.

I'm austitic, I have ADHD and I'm deaf.

I identify as disabled and my partner, who also acts as an unofficial carer, would agree.

I'm not legally recognised as disabled and trying to get any sort of help with my difficulties is so hard.

I'm not legally recognised as disabled and trying to get any sort of help with my difficulties is so hard.

You have none of these things on your medical records? Have you never had a hearing test or an assessment for ADHD or autism?