AIBU to find the wording of this question offensive?

[3beesinmybonnet]

Bought a dishwasher from Argos and just filled in their customer satisfaction survey, giving them top marks throughout.

Then they asked me the question below. AIBU to find the wording offensive?

What’s wrong with impairment? Visually impaired is a perfectly standard term.

it’s not about identifying ‘with’ your disability, but identify as ‘having’ a disability.

I don’t see anything wrong with it personally.

Impairment is used as some people feel disabled and some don’t by the impairment. So a hearing impairment may mean person A feels disabled and Person B isn’t because under the social model it’s the way society is set up. It’s allowing people to have some sense of ownership rather than being labelled just because of a condition and seen through a medical lens.

its clumsily worded, I think they’ve mixed a few concepts up.

This is a typical way to ask a poll or survey question.

Looks like you may have done https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

I do have disabilities and they are real - I don’t “identify” as having them and agree the wording is objectional.

That said my bigger issue here would be why are Argos wanting to capture information about my disabilities after the service /item has been delivered? Its none of their business and they should not be asking for this.

The only point at which it might be relevant is in advance of the service/delivery where it would be reasonable to ask “do you have any specific needs we should accommodate when delivering”.

What's their reason for wanting to know?

Disabled people are not a monolith. Some won’t like that wording, some will, I suspect most don’t care one way or the other. As a disabled person I can say it would even enter my mind to think about it. I’ve bought lots of products from Argos so must have filled one of these in at some point but I don’t ever remember it, so that’s how much I didn’t even think about it!

However they phrase it, someone will think they've got it wrong. I think it's fine in this example because as a PP says, two people can have the same condition, one considers it a disability and another doesn't. Someone could feel they have anxiety or depression without it having been formally diagnosed - I held off going to the doctor throughout my 20s but I definitely knew I had it.

I don't find it offensive, but also don't understand what they are planning on doing with the information. What is the point of collecting it if they won't use it to improve services? A person answering yes could have a wide range of needs eg autism and dyslexic are very different. Why aren't they asking what the person's access needs are instead?

Fine wiyh the "identify" part, as people with the same condition will feel differently about it and will often be affected differently too.

Of course it's not offensive. If you don't want to answer the question tick prefer not to say. I would imagine the whole point of the question would be to design their products with disabled people in mind. Which can only be a good thing surely.

It's not offensive at all.

At most it has slightly clumsy wording.

Just tick prefer not to say or just don't take the survey instead of getting yourself all riled up about it.

And this I do find offensive and why I hate ‘identify as' <insert disability> I doesn’t mean you have been proven to have it.

You may have a visible disability and not feel disabled, but it doesn’t mean the workplace shouldn’t make necessary adjustments. Someone else may need them and not feel able to ask in that case.

Someone things just have to be black and white.

"Do you identity..." Was originally language used for disability to allow people to identify out of the categorisation. People who could fall into the disabled category might opt out. Perhaps their condition fluctuates or is under control with treatment, perhaps they feel that the IBD that means being disabled in a toilet sense doesn't align with being disabled when talking about lifts and wheelchair access. It allows disabled people to contextualise their needs.

The fact it was appropriated and misused to allow people to identify into categories they didn't belong in, was the problem, not the language itself.

Right, but only one considers themselves disabled by it.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been on that point?

This isn't one of those things.

If someone doesn't feel disabled by a condition, it's not up to them to advocate for the needs of those who do. It's not ok to assign that task to them.

You can't order someone to feel how you think they should about themselves.

It's a customer satisfaction survey. If people who identify with one of those conditions consistently mark them down, they can look to address it.

Why do you say they won't use it to improve services? That will be precisely the purpose of collecting it (whether they do or not is of course another matter). Surveys show up broad trends which can then be investigated. They don't want chapter and verse on everyone at this point.

The social model of disability is that no-one has disabilities but that society puts barriers in place which create a disability.

Not everyone has to agree with that.

But I know the deaf 'culture' movement for e.g doesn't use words like loss or impairment as that suggests there is something 'wrong' with not hearing when many people don't consider themselves to be intrinsically disabled but that society puts barriers in place to create that.

I do have a few medical conditions which could come under a few of those categories but it wouldn't occur to me to find this question or its wording offensive.

Slightly clumsy maybe, but not offensive. In fact, it probably wouldn't even register on my radar much.

An impairment is not the same thing as a disability - to be a disability the "impairment" must meet threshold criteria. You can have an "impairment" and not have a disability. The term impairment in itself has no meaning - it means what you want it to mean, as Alice said. The information that Argos are therefore collecting has, in itself no meaningful purpose. It cannot demonstrate compliance with the Act (if that is what they are trying to achieve) because it doesn't use the same terms.

That said, people are different. Some may not find it offensively worded. I do. So I would have ticked "Other" on account of my struggle to tolerate idiots.

I just don’t agree with the relevance of your point 🤷🏻‍♀️
If you have one of the conditions listed it makes zero difference whether you consider it a disability or a blessing.
Presumably, they want to know if you have it, not how you feel about it?

The social model if disability is that people aren't disabled but that society puts barriers in place that create a disability.

So some people with what society would say are disabilities identity as such and some don't.

It's actually really inclusive language.

Then you haven't followed. The question asked is Do you identify as someone with an impairment or health condition? IF SO, choose from the list etc...

If my answer is no, it doesn't matter what is on the list to tick, I've moved on. I may have a condition that you think is represented in the options, but so what? I've already answered no and clicked through.

@PhilippaGeorgiou I assumed you were objecting to the term impairment as that is often something people don’t like. I’ve already said it mixes different concepts.

Well, I’m sure anyone who does can complain. It sounds fairly standard wording to me.

But YANBU to find it offensive - anyone can find anything offensive if they like. Doesn’t mean that offence was intended or that anyone need pay them any mind.