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?

How many times does it have to be repeated that a medical diagnosis of a health condition is not legal proof of disability in most cases?

How many times does it have to be repeated that a medical diagnosis of a health condition is not legal proof of disability in most cases

Most of the time you may not need to prove it. And you are allowed to self declare that much of the time. But that does actually have to be based on an actual disability. What don't you understand about that? If you wanted a pip payment you wouldn't just get it by self identifying your disability.

I'm diagnosed with austism and adhd and wear hearing aids.

I'm talking about financial support. I'm not disabled enough for that even though I can only work part time.

If you wanted a pip payment you wouldn't just get it by self identifying your disability.

I got a PIP payment with no official diagnoses (medicated previously for anxiety & depression only, plus a research and family-based self diagnosis of autism). Diagnoses aren't everything, it's to do with how it affects you.

They are medical conditions, not ‘actual disabilities.’

You keep confusing the two. A disability is something determined in a legal or social context. A medical condition is determined by doctors, psychologists etc.

Sorry, my post was a reply to Hettie.

got a PIP payment with no official diagnoses (medicated previously for anxiety & depression only, plus a research and family-based self diagnosis of autism). Diagnoses aren't everything, it's to do with how it affects you.

Yes and you have a medical record showing you were treated for that. That's the whole point isn't it. You do not get a pip payment without some medical proof. You didn't self identify into anxiety and depression. You have evidence of that. And a self diagnosis of autism isn't a diagnosis of autism. You were given a payment based on your medical history and whatever difficulties that causes you. This is not something that we simply identify into. You can't just identify as having a disability; to meet the definition under the equality act you need medical proof, even if you rarely are required to show that proof.

The citizens advice provides more information on this. You may not have an official diagnosis, but you still need medical evidence to show your impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to do day-to-day activities.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/checking-if-its-discrimination/check-if-youre-disabled-under-the-equality-act/

I'm diagnosed with austism and adhd and wear hearing aids.
I'm talking about financial support. I'm not disabled enough for that even though I can only work part time.

But then you can can self declare you have a disability as you have medical evidence and you feel it impacts your life. Youre not self identifying. You have those things. It's a proven fact. How much of an impact that has is for you to decide however. This is of course entirely separate to bring eligible for disability benefits.

And a self diagnosis of autism isn't a diagnosis of autism. You were given a payment based on your medical history and whatever difficulties that causes you.

Except my experiences of autism were explicitly discussed and mentioned in the final report (that's probably not the official terminology but a letter explaining my claim after I was accepted). They were a major contributing factor in my receipt of PIP. Apologies if I'm missing the point, I easily might be.

They are medical conditions, not ‘actual disabilities.’
You keep confusing the two. A disability is something determined in a legal or social context. A medical condition is determined by doctors, psychologists etc.
Sorry, my post was a reply to Hettie.

Sorry, what's the point here you're trying to make?

If you look at the world health organisation, or similar institutions, you will see that disability refers to what a person with an impairment has in social or legal contexts.

It doesn’t say anywhere on my medical records that I have a disability. It says I have specific health conditions.

Whether or not I have a disability is decided by the law in situations where it matters. If it never matters, it never gets decided and there is no official record of me ever having a disability.

I can self identify that I am a particular height, if nobody has a tape measure to hand or a copy of my records. It doesn’t mean it is a feeling or made up. It means, that I, myself, am identifying the facts about myself, in the absence of an alternative record.

And as most disabled people will never apply for pip or go to a tribunal, there’s never going to be a record of whether or not they are fulfil the criteria.

I struggle with the concept myself, particularly when applying for jobs and there's a question on the application form, do you consider yourself to have a disability. I have a chronic health condition and I'm usually fine as long as they stick to the job remit. But it's caused problems before because I've said no then had to later explain why I can't do certain things that weren't in the job description but have since been introduced. It's very difficult to get the point across though. People think you're making it up if they can't see the condition or any proof of it.

Whether or not I have a disability is decided by the law in situations where it matters. If it never matters, it never gets decided and there is no official record of me ever having a disability

I refer you back to the point that in order to have a disability as defined by the equality act:
If you don't have a diagnosis, you still need medical evidence to show your impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to do day-to-day activities.

This is the point that protect disabled people and gives them the right to declare they have a protected characteristic of a disability under the equality act.

Your position is no different to someone simply identifying as having a disability. And in the scenario, set out in the op, people should not be identify into this in order to gain advantage simply by self identifying as disabled. It may not effect your life generally so you have no need to take it forward. But if youre seeking to declare as a person as a disability, within this legal framework, then one simply cannot self identify as disabled to, as in the ops example get to the top of list votes to gain advantage. This is why the definition as provided by the equality act is important. Because it's there to protect people with genuine disabilities.

We are going around in circles Hettie.

People self identify as disabled based on the fact they have a recorded medical condition.

Nobody is suggesting people should make up that they have impairments that they don’t actually have. That is not what a request for self identification is asking you to do.

Do not be under misapprehension that the SNP are doing anything for the good of anyone other than for the good of the cult. They are a party with a singular goal and will do anything to further their aims and will damage and destroy anything they need to to get there.
They thrive on grievance and blame & being the victim. You are not allowed to be successful as that undermines their goal.
Don't either think they want the best people for the job either. Nippy and her 'beard' slimy Pete want to surround themselves with yes men/women who will do as instructed and not think for themselves. Kate Forbes only got in there because she speak Gaelic and isn't clever enough think for herself. She does as she's told. Same with Humza Yousaf who as transport minister famously said "I'm no transport expert" - erm that's kind of your job, and also got caught driving without insurance. Never mind John Swinney, he's just being kept as someone to throw under a bus for something when convenient.
There is a good reason it is the daily Sturgeon propaganda show rather than medical experts being allowed to present - it's not about the day job, it's all about advancing the goal.

Nobody is suggesting people should make up that they have impairments that they don’t actually have. That is not what a request for self identification is asking you to do.

It's the wording that's a problem. One that has already moved into sex, gender and race. And one that is creeping now into disability. It's a problem. And it's easy to see where this will end up, if we are not careful with the words we use to describe things. We don't self identify as disabled. We choose to disclose whether we are disabled. Two very different things yet easy enough for people to swap and change, believing they are the same, until it simply ends up as self identifying. We've been here before.

My sons registered as being disabled but doesn't identify himself as being disabled.

And the fact that it's the SNP pushing this rings very loud alarm bells.

But that isn’t what has happened. The concept of self identification was taken from disability and moved into the trans debate, not the other way around. The trans debate will cannibalise any issue it can find.

In normal life, people rarely say they self identify as something and rarely described themselves as disabled. The former sounds ludicrous in most informal contexts and the latter is largely irrelevant when what people actually need to know is what impairment you have.

Both self identification and disabled are contested labels. I would generally avoid either and use a less controversial and clearer term if possible.

@HettieMillia

And the fact that it's the SNP pushing this rings very loud alarm bells.

Well they need something to deflect attention from everything else they are trying to sweep under the carpet at Bute House at the moment. That carpet must resemble the moguls course at the winter olympics by now.

@MissMarpleDarling

My sons registered as being disabled but doesn't identify himself as being disabled.

I never know what people mean when they say “registered”. I obviously missed something along the way. Is it to do with PIP or an actual register? Or is this outside of England?

That carpet must resemble the moguls course at the winter olympics by now.

😂 Very true.

I never know what people mean when they say “registered”. I obviously missed something along the way. Is it to do with PIP or an actual register? Or is this outside of England?
@RickiTarr

Same. I have MH issues that affect my day to day functions yet I am not on PIP/DLA or have a Blue Badge. But my health issues disable me. Not on any register.

Maybe it’s a census thing?

There isn't a national register where one can register as being disabled. But there are certain places where a register is kept, for example social care departments where support is being provided under the care act for example.