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

I'm sorry I'm very confused.

Your post at 15:14: "
I am not aware of every having heard anyone refer to a "disabled company". "Disability organisations" yes. "Disabled company" - not until today."

Me: so "disabled organisation" is fine but not "disabled company"?

You: "Who said "disabled organisation"?

Me: You did!

You: No I didn't, I said "disabled organisation."

Um....

You: No I didn't, I said "disabled organisation."

You do seem very confused. That's not what I said.

My post reads:

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

I've attached the screenshot below.

Yes - the screencap shows that you did indeed say "disabled organisation".

So what's the issue?

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.

Which is exactly what most disabled people want and what the disability rights movement advocates. Under the social model of disabilty, we are disabled by society, not by our impairments, therefore we are DISABLED people. If I can't get into a building, is it my wheelchair or the stairs? Its the stairs. Its society. Disability is not something I carry around in a bag, its not something I take on an off. I am not a person WITH a disability. I'm a DISABLED person.

Don't speak for me. You are either not disabled or you have your own preferences.

No it doesn't. It shows that I said DISABILITY organisation.

Are you using a screen reader?

She didn't. She said disabled LED.

Yes I am using a screen reader.

Do you have a problem with that?

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?

"Women's organisation/company" makes sense though because it implies the company is the possession of women. "Disabled company" sounds like the company is disabled. It only makes sense if "company" is used to mean a group of people, not a business.

Disability company - a company which focuses on a disability/disabilities
Disability-led company - a company led by the needs of disabled people/people with disabilities first

Etc

And before you jump on me, I also have disabilities (but only disabled by them in certain situations, so I don't define myself as disabled) and I also have never heard of "disabled company".

I don't have a problem with that (why would I?)

But it would make sense of the fact that I have shown you a screen shot clearly showing that I did NOT type "disabled company" and you are continuing to claim that I did.

Another poster has now confirmed I didn't say what you claim I did.

I really don't know why you're being so pedantic about the very minor issue of a disabled, autistic non-native English speaker not using the exact word choice you think they should?

Honestly do you not think two pages chiding me for saying "disabled company" rather than "disabled organisation" or "disability company" is a bit much?

What's your agenda in being so extremely strict and censorious about word-policing and spelling-policing people using adaptive software to read and type with?

Personally I've never worked anywhere or worked with anywhere that used "disability company". "Disabled company" IS common whether you have personally experienced it or not.

She's not being pedantic. There is a HUGE difference between having a disability and being disabled. Language does matter.

"Disabled organisation" and "disability organisation" have different meanings.

Okay then all of you go and write complaint letters to the many many companies and organisations that use that terminology and tell them that they're wrong.

I really don't know why you're being so pedantic about the very minor issue of a disabled, autistic non-native English speaker not using the exact word choice you think they should?

I am not being pedantic. You used the phrase and other posters (including me) noted that they hadn't heard of it. I didn't say anything negative about the use of "disabled company" - simply that I haven't heard of its use.

You then accused me of using a phrase I hadn't used. When I printed a screen shot evidencing that I hadn't referred to "disabled organisations" or "disabled companies", you doubled down on your claims.

Obviously now I know you're using a screen reader, that puts a different complexion on things.

I have no strong feelings on the use of "disabled company" - other than part of your definition of what a "disabled company" is, ie, exclusively staffed by disabled people, is not something I would have recognised (or thought was legal under UK law).

I'm a person with a disability. I know very few people who want the disability to be put before the person. Including myself. So whilst you're shouting about it with your capital letters, remember not to speak for me either.

It's very very odd that someone who claims to have worked in the disability field for 20 years to have never heard of companies/orgs that hire disabled people and to be unaware that such a thing is legal.

Or to have never heard of the many companies and orgs, or the activists, who use "disabled company" "or disabled organisation."

But sure, on a thread full of ableism the most important thing is to put a disabled person in their place and slap them down HARD and constantly chide and police them for daring to to use the wording of their own choice.

Identity-first language has been the common and accepted parlance in the UK for a long time.

I personally have issue with both identity-first language and with the SMoD.

But factually both of us are in a very small minority.

I am assuming he or she is trying to work out what the issue is. No need to be so defensive. Screen readers don't always pick up things accurately. It's not an issue to check if you are using one.

It's very very odd that someone who claims to have worked in the disability field for 20 years to have never heard of companies/orgs that hire disabled people and to be unaware that such a thing is legal.

In my post of 15:02, I said I was unaware of companies that EXCLUSIVELY hire disabled people.

Exact words:

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

I MEANT "never heard of a company that exclusively hires disabled people." It's a typo. You're slapping me down about a typo now?

It's very weird for someone with the level of experience you claim to have to be unaware of companies that exclusively hire or work with disabled people, and to be unaware that such a thing is legal.

I've worked for three separate companies that exclusively hire disabled people and I use the services of a fourth.

Rather, it's more ableism to not disagree with you just because you are disabled. That would be discrimination. Being disabled/having a disability doesn't mean you can silence others, including other disabled/people with disabilities, because you are disabled.

And two of my friends are currently working for a company that exclusively hires disabled people for the part of what the company does that is the main thing the company does and the public facing part. They do hire ableds for some behind the scenes roles.

It's not a typo. It absolutely changes the meaning of what you're accusing me of having said.

To have a blanket policy for one's company whereby you EXCLUSIVELY hire disabled staff and will not hire non-disabled staff - yes, I would be amazed if that was legal.

Who is the post aimed at?

Because I've said all along that not all disabled people/people with disabilities agree. In my first post I said, "a debate that has been going on for decades" and "I'm not saying that you have to agree, not all disabled people agree!"

Yet I'm the only one being slapped down hard and having my right to use the terminology of my own choosing policed.