who is being unreasonable? disabled person 'over sensitive'

[amazeandastonish]

Person A has multiple disabilities and asks if everyone in a group can do something as a reasonable adjustment.
Person B refuses to do so. Person A asks again and explains why adjustment is needed. Person B tells person A they are 'woke', 'over sensitive' and that they (person B) will not be 'dictated to' by someone who doesn't even work here.
Person A complains to me (D&I advisor) and head of HR (my manager).
Neither me, nor manager were present.
Person A is an external disability awareness trainer and the group are a group of staff we had asked them to train on disabilitiy awareness as we had identified a need for it (as you can see!).
We struggled to get sign ups - expecting 30 but only 10 signed up. All other 9 people were positive about the session content.
Head of HR thinks Person A should 'let it go' because we are paying them, they are meant to be teaching us right from wrong, so should have expected that reaction and just dealt with it.
Head of HR thinks Person A was rude to 'single someone out' although neither of us were there to witness it (cause we had 'other things to do' - I did protest!)
I think we should action this but as you can see, my job isn't an easy one!

YABU - the trainer should have expected this / dealt with it themselves
YANBU - the trainer was right to complain and we should do something

That makes sense if you have enough useful sight to make use of that description.

It's probably useful if people can remain in the seat they were sitting in as well then when they introduced themselves, rather than switching around?

Most people that are registered blind have extremely limited vision, not no vision.

If the perpetually anxious and offended had bothered to read the replies from visually impaired posters, they would’ve known this before saying their ‘discomfort’ outweighs everything.

But would also make me feel really exposed as I would have to tell the trainer that I am bald. If I neglected to mention hair, it'd be pretty bloody obvious to everyone present why I'd done it.

On the bright side, they'd have no difficulty tracking my movements around the room.

I think, if that was the reason why the trainer in the op needed a visual description (obviously not all people with a VI have enough useful sight) then it would have been better to tell the room why. People are usually a lot more giving if they can understand that there's a useful purpose to it.

I get that too.

If the perpetually anxious and offended had bothered to read the replies from visually impaired posters, they would’ve known this before saying their ‘discomfort’ outweighs everything.

Equally, if some people would read the replies from posters with physical differences, they'd know why giving visual descriptions can be problematic and why being told that they're just anxious, perpetually offended snowflakes who need to man up, and that the needs/preferences of visually impaired people must always trump their own wellbeing, isn't necessarily going to go down well.

Because there's no such thing as a disabled company. A company isn't a sentient being.

Feel free to write to my company and to the many other companies that use that descriptor then...

Or you could stop being a massive pedant and recognise that "disabled company" is commonly accepted and widely used shorthand for "a company that exclusively hires disabled people and works to promote disability access and inclusion within their field, and to promote and support the careers of disabled people working in that field."

Do you also object to companies and organisations calling themselves "feminist organisations" or "female organisations"? After all, organisations can't have a gender, they're not sentient beings!

Most people that are registered blind have extremely limited vision, not no vision.

I know this is true. I also know that not all people with a VI would need this information as they would not be able to see the colour anyway. Everyone's experience is different. Even in the VI world.

To be fair, I've never heard the term disabled company either. It sounds like it's putting the disability before the person. Before everything in fact.

Or you could stop being a massive pedant and recognise that "disabled company" is commonly accepted and widely used shorthand for "a company that exclusively hires disabled people and works to promote disability access and inclusion within their field, and to promote and support the careers of disabled people working in that field."

IS that the common usage?

I interpreted a "disabled company" to mean a company that promotes the rights and interests, etc of disabled people (ie, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Mind, etc). So the second part of your definition, yes.

But I've never heard of it being used to describe a company that "exclusively hires disabled people."

I wouldn't even have thought that was legal, at least in the UK.

To be fair, I've never heard the term disabled company either. It sounds like it's putting the disability before the person. Before everything in fact.

I haven't heard of it either. I thought "disabled company" was being used in place of "disability charity/company" but apparently not.

I have never heard of a disabled company either or one that exclusively hires disabled people.

But on a point of law, it isn’t discriminatory to favour disabled individuals. It is the only protected characteristic that doesn’t work both ways so to speak.

So yes men can claim sex discrimination, even though it is really intended to protect women, a straight person could also claim discrimination if they were being treated less favourably than a gay person. But no, in law, an able bodied person cannot claim that they were discriminated versus a disabled person.

I know MN hates this term, but: please, please educate yourself.

I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I would be more than happy to provide resources or places to start. Disability culture is huge online, it's really easy to find information or read articles, magazines, blogposts, by disabled people.

I realise that many ableds have little or no experience with the disabled community or disabled culture. But it's very hard trying to have a conversation with people who are starting from a place of absolute zero knowledge or experience. I'm not blaming anyone, just explaining why it's frustrating.

Imagine someone going into feminist chat and posting on the GC threads who had never heard of feminism, had no idea about anything to do with feminist history, had never heard any of the arguments or debates before. Just frustrating.

For example, what you're touching on without realising it here is a debate that has been going on for decades which is called the "identity first or person first" debate. That debate very broadly is about whether "disabled person" or "person with disability" is the more preferred wording. A lot of ableds automatically assume that "person with a disability" is the best language, because in their mind it's not defining someone by their disability. That's a reasonable assumption to make but overwhelmingly, actual disabled people prefer and choose identity-first language. The reasons why are very complex and involve a whole huge social history. To be able to understand, you would need to lean about the history of disability activism, and about how the Social Model of Disability has replaced the Medical Model of Disability.

I'm not saying that you have to agree, not all disabled people agree! But to form an educated opinion on the "identity-first vs person-first" debate it is essential to learn about SMoD vs MMoD and to read articles by disabled people which explain and go into detail of why identity-first language is important.

"Disabled company" is very very very common and accepted language if you have even the tiniest level of involvement with the disabled community or disability activism.

"Disabled company" is very very very common and accepted language if you have even the tiniest level of involvement with the disabled community or disability activism.

I have a disability, I work in the disability field and have done so for nearly 20 years. I am in and out of disability-related meetings events virtually every day of my working life.

I am not aware of every having heard anyone refer to a "disabled company". "Disability organisations", "disability charities", "disabled-led companies" - all yes.
"Disabled company" - not until today.

You're right, not all disabled people do agree. It's probably sensible not to waste your time writing big posts to people about educating themselves when you don't actually know anything about that person or their life

Same.

This is the equivalent of a man who's never had a conversation with a woman or thought about women's rights in his life, going online to mouth off about how he's never heard the term "feminist company" or "women's organisation" in his life, how on earth can a COMPANY be feminist, how can an organisation be female, a company is not a sentient being! And anyway surely the term "women's organisation" is bad because it's defining people by their sex and putting their sex before them as a person?

But if you want to waste your time being pedantic because apparently "disabled organisation" is totally fine and normal but "disabled company" (surely "company" and "organisation" mean basically the same thing?) is outrageous and arcane, sure.

If you google "disabled company" (or Twitter search the same) tons of stuff comes up.

I really don't believe anyone with any involvement in disability activism has never heard the term "disabled organisation" or "disabled company" before.

But if you want to waste your time being pedantic because apparently "disabled organisation" is totally fine and normal but "disabled company" (surely "company" and "organisation" mean basically the same thing?) is outrageous and arcane, sure.

Who said "disabled organisation"? .

Um you did??

Patting the guide dog is just plain ignorance ( my kids at 5 knew not to ever distract a GD) —- and annoying if you’ve been told not to.

Person b was deliberately being a dick! I would seriously consider their employment if it were me

No, I didn't. I said "disability organisation" and "disabled-led" company.