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?

That sounds a bit strange. These so called “barriers” would affect everyone equally unless some had different abilities to begin with.

Doesn't change the fact that if they only do phone calls for deliveries/customer services/etc, I'm still not going to be able to hear them.

The equality act is legislation to prevent people who qualify as having a disability under the definition of the act from being put at a disadvantage by employers or organisations compared to people who don't.

It's not a definition of disability.

There is no overarching definition of disability.

Nothing offensive here. Unless you think someone disabled is somehow less than you?
The only offensive thing here is … you.

I work in marketing and have to put together surveys like this. Agree it is worded awkwardly, you should write to them and offer feedback as it will be appreciated. Marketers are usualy not trying to upset or offend anyone, we are usually nice people doing a job 😁 but can and do sometimes get it wrong.

I think it’s a really weird way of asking. I can see why they’ve done it as they are trying NOT to offend anyone but it does sounds as though having a disability is optional.

You’re doing well at being a close second.

That's the point of the social model. They weren't barriers for everyone.

That previously, society designed everything for abled people.

Assuming that everything is fine until it doesn't work for one/many person and then saying that they're disabled if it doesn't work for them.

So when society says 'disabled access' a lot of people will say that's society making them disabled when it should have been generally available for all in the first place.

OMG, everything offends people these days!! It’s just getting ridiculous

2 of my kids have medical conditions which are deemed to be a disability under the Equality Act but which they don't let stop them studying, working full time, playing sport, travelling (including solo, long haul) etc so don't consider themselves disabled.

they both think the wording is rather clumsy, but not offensive, which seems to support the majority opinion here.

It's a bit crap but no one is making you fill it in!

I am disabled and I have no problem with this wording. For clarity, I am autistic, have ADHD, and also a chronic illness.

Not all autistic people consider themselves disabled, and within adult autistic communities the term "identify" seems well-accepted and often welcomed due to the nature of the condition. When your disability affects the development of your brain, personality, social skills and perception of the world it very much can be a part of one's identity, and the range of impacts and symptom profiles means two people with the same diagnosis on paper can have very different opinions on whether or not they are disabled. When it comes to physical disability, my chronic illness is something relatively common and often mild which I have to a severe and debilitating degree; most people with the same diagnosis are not disabled by it. That means I have to identify myself as disabled by this condition if I need any accommodations, because very few people would assume my illness constitutes a disability unless I clarify. I think in reality very few disabilities are black-and-white, and this phrasing accounts for that.

As PPs have said, though, disabled people are not a monolith. Some will agree and some will not. Disability is an incredibly broad spectrum with a lot of contradictory identity politics between different groups. I think this question does about as good a job as possible to accommodate for that.

What question? There's just a blank space.

Technically, I have a learning disability. It is mild, and did not prevent me from doing well academically, in a STEM subject, and getting post-grad qualifications.
Therefore for most the purposes of most questionnaires, I do not "identify" as someone with a learning disability, and don't bother mentioning it.
On the rare occasions when it is pertinent, I will tick the box.

Oh sorry,it's appeared now!

"Identify as" is a thing with disabilities and predated trans issues. There are communities such as the Deaf community who don't always identify as disabled.
I have many health issues which are technically disabilities, I don't consider myself disabled. It gets complicated.

This is really quite something. You just want to be offended. You can't be offended on your own behalf so you're on here looking for people to be offended for it seems. Why didn't you just tick the option that said "prefer not to say"?

After you explained it, you are right. It is offensive. People either are or are not disabled.

I think this wording is used where they want to identify the widest possible relevant group rather than just those whose disability has been formally recognised. So you don’t need a formal diagnosis, blue badge etc. It’s not intended to suggest that a disability is something you can just identify into more broadly.

A lot of disabled people do not identify as such, though. And that’s their right. As the OP isn’t disabled she can take offence if she wants but it’s pretty pointless.

Learning disabilities are widely through education/health/social care to be what used to be called intellectual disabilities i.e based on IQ and associated disabilities.

Dyslexia etc was always considered a learning difficulty not disability.

I can see how it’s offensive. If you actually have one or more of those conditions, been diagnosed, probably suffered, maybe on medications or had surgery. To be lumped into the same category as someone for whom it’s a “special identity” (so attention seeking ballocks and usually means they are not that thing at all), is offensive. Bit like the white men who ‘identify’ as women of colour, it’s offensive.

Thank you to everyone who replied/voted. My apologies for not initially stating exactly which bit I was referring to but I didn't want to sway the vote by pointing it out to people who may not even have noticed it.

So most people think I'm being unreasonable (my first thread on AIBU😂😂) most people aren't bothered by it, but some people would be because it's badly worded.

I agree "offensive" was probably too strong a word, perhaps inappropriate or tactless might have been better.

@Strangeworldtoday It's nice to know feedback is appreciated. I ticked "other" and used the box below it to comment on their wording.

Because they are just asking what's "wrong" with you, not what do you need to access their shopping. Someone might need step free access because they have a wheelchair, have a push chair, have had a stroke and are wobbly etc. But the adaptation is the same regardless of the reason. People with hearing loss might need a loop, to be spoken to directly so they can lip read, or a BSL interpreter. Just knowing they have hearing loss isn't enough.

I do think it's great that places want to support, I just don't see how this list will.

It's part of a survey. If they find that people who tick one or other of these boxes routinely rate them lower, they can look into why. You get this is just one question yes?