Now you can identify as disabled too

[Tinlegs]

This is a Scottish based Arts Organisation which is currently advertising for certain posts. Self-id has got this far too. Can you identify into / out of a disability? I think the organisation has laudable aims but?

www.boptheatre.co.uk/bop-youth-arts-consultants/?fbclid=IwAR1I4KSdHUlRLW_3p99jutJpu7StGaDSv1

The phrase has been used in the context of disability for well over a decade, its only become an issue since self ID was proposed.
Its appropriate to ask someone if they identify as disabled because we dont give disabled people a card to carry, and they may not yet have a diagnosis anyway.

Disability is a complex one: you can self identify as having a disability and the reason for this is so that someone who isn't able bodied can choose whether to be classed as disabled. However, I recall there being an instance in the Paralympics when an athlete who perceived herself as being unable to walk was not eligible to compete as she had no physical impediment to walking. So I guess the line might be drawn if you self ID but are seeking access to specific devices or opportunities?

As far as I know while it's your choice to disclose whether or not you are disabled (the word identify is what's become misleading, in an attempt to be sensitive to and not forcibly label people in a way they dislike) if you are needing the protections of the equality act for employment, access etc, then there is specific criteria under law as to what disability is and who is covered by the term. I've needed to jump the hoops to prove it on several occasions for work, and rightly so.

A note on terminology – what do we mean?
What does BOP mean when it uses disabled? BOP uses the term ‘disabled people’ or ‘disabled artists’ to refer to anyone who self-identifies as disabled. This can include D/deaf people if they identify as disabled as well as others living with impairments (physical, sensory, learning, cognitive, mental health, etc) that identify as disabled. BOP uses the Social Model of Disability and recognises that some people experience disabling barriers.
Some D/deaf people may not identify as disabled. BOP recognise that three predominant terms are used with regards to deafness – ‘Deaf’, ‘deaf’ and ‘D/deaf’. To be deaf (small d) means you have a hearing loss but you do not identify as part of the Deaf Community. Generally deaf people use oral communication. They may have some knowledge of SSE (sign supported English) but this does not make them culturally deaf.
Deaf – with a capital “D” – is used to refer to people who are culturally Deaf. These people actively use British Sign Language or Scottish Sign Language; they see themselves as being culturally Deaf and part of the Deaf community.
D/deaf is used to refer to both groups of people and on occasion we will use this distinctly from disabled. However, in most of our work when we use the term disabled we are also thinking about D/deaf people.
Non-disabled is the antonym of disabled and as such BOP never uses ‘able-bodied’, which is a term that ignores the fact that many disabled people face barriers that do not relate to their bodies. (source: BBC Ouchh*)

Normally I'd be all over this but self ID here doesn't mean the same thing as self ID with gender. There's no register for disabled people. Some people are recognised in places as having a disability where they aren't in others - I don't need a seat on public transport myself... I do need my university to accommodate me to be able to learn at the pace of other students.

No exploitation here at all. I think this is a commendable organisation with laudable aims, as I said in my OP. However, if you can identify into disability then that means that people like me (able bodied, female, sighted, hearing, no known mental health conditions - just getting a bit old) can exploit this in exactly the same way. And they do - how many of us have seen posters who see having a child in a pushchair allows them to identify into the disabled space on a bus.

I can't identify our of my asthma. Nor can I identify into being disabled.

I was not aware that this language had been used as part of the "disability discourse" but, as that is the case, then surely it is pretty worrying that it has been hijacked.

And, at no point did I mention trans - merely the spreading of the idea of self-id. Clearly, as someone said above, hijacked from the disability lobby.

It's a shame that this term has been appropriated with the result that its legitimate use may now be misunderstood.

People can choose whether or not to 'identify' using a characteristic they actually have.

This is the opposite to people who 'identify' as something they subjectively are not.

No, able bodied people cannot self ID as disabled people, when you apply for a job as a disabled person you have to supply some evidence of a disability.

It has not been hijacked. Its a phrase thats being used in a different context. There is no link between this and self ID in other contexts.

I was not aware that this language had been used as part of the "disability discourse" but, as that is the case, then surely it is pretty worrying that it has been hijacked.

But you could have read on the website the exact note I posted. Instead you start a thread saying now you can self ID as disabled.

I do understand why you would be concerned about the terminology and it just goes to show how the bullying and female appropriation by the TRAs is having an effect on previously innocent terminology. In this case it’s not the same.

No, able bodied people cannot self ID as disabled people, when you apply for a job as a disabled person you have to supply some evidence of a disability.

I didn't have to when applying for university. But then maybe that's because not everyone considers hearing impairment as a disability. My hearing is only partially impaired though so I've never known if that counts or not?

Disability is contextual though and the gender debate would benefit from more context, so I think it's not a bad parallel. I have crohn's and arthritis. In terms of a radar key application, I do consider myself disabled/ ID as disabled. My arthritis has in the past been severe enough to consider myself disabled, now it is well controlled, I think I have a condition but not a disability. It's not a case of identifying out of a condition but recognising it in context.

You could consider being deaf, missing a hand, missing an eye etc as disabilities in other areas but not in terms of needing an adapted toilet. In driving a car, a missing eye or hand is more of a disability than an inflamed bowel.

The social model of disability is relative. Having dwarfism is a disability as we have built our world a certain size, so shorter people need adaptations. If dwarfism was more common than not, taller people without it would be the ones needing adaptations.

Thanks. Yes - should have read further. Sorry for that.

I had to prove to my university that I was disabled... involved a doctor signing off a long form detailing my disability and myself having an interview and needs assessment with them.

I could have just not mentioned it of course... I wouldn't have been thrown off the course for not disclosing it

But to be accommodated to keep up - I had to provide medical evidence

As self-IDing as disabled (when you have no disability at all) isn't as socially acceptable as self-IDing as woman it is pretty rare, but it does happen.

www.thesun.co.uk/archives/health/872414/i-dont-really-need-a-wheelchair-but-i-would-just-love-to-be-disabled/

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458715/amp/Spanish-basketball-team-pretended-disabled-win-Paralympic-gold.html

Disability is a somewhat subjective though. I think you define it in law as a physical or mental impairment that substantially affects your day to day life.

My dyslexia is a mental impairment that affects my day to day existence. Am I disabled? Probably only if dyslexia has significant detrimental impact.