"Identify as having a disability"

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

Doing a form filling for a visa.

"Do you identify as having a disability?"

Surely disability is a measurable, quantifiable factor in someone's life? You either have a disability, or you do not. What does "indentify as" mean?

I never know what to put for this question. I have MS and have been very lucky in the treatment I've had for it. So it doesn't limit me at all.

I'm disabled. I may or may not answer that question on a form, depending on whether it's relevant or whether I consider it any of their business. Especially if it's nothing more than a tick box statistics exercise. And then it does, purely depend on, how I feel about classing myself as disabled or having that identity etc etc, which is very sticky territory for many reasons.

In dealing with discrimination as an employee directly related to not being able bodied, which was threatening my career and ability to have a job, yes, I had to not only disclose my disabilities but attend HR medicals and agree to my dr/hospital notes being shared, to prove that I was of a group for which these resources are provided. This did provide independent confirmation to my employers that yes, legally I was disabled, therefore I was protected by the EA, and I would have legal recourse against them if they did not take this seriously.

My self description is entirely up to me. However the actual meaning of the word and group in terms of accessing protected resources for those genuinely needing them is not something someone can opt into without the confirming evidence.

So disability is how a choice and therefore the individual's responsibly. I choose to be disabled it would seem.

No I fucking don't. I am, whether I like it or not, incomparison with able bodied people I am disabled. No fucking choice.

Oh, clever. I can imagine how this is going to go. Logical conclusion.

I am not keen on self-ID or social model disability. I will always be autistic; it may affect me to a lesser or greater degree depending on the situation, but I have a measurable, identified impairment compared to the non-disabled population. It also, as other posters mentioned, has the connotation of you can choose to be disabled (ie you fancy larping it for fun) or can choose not to be (you don’t need the accommodations you rely on to get through life).

Seems to be a really unpopular opinion in autism groups, though. Don’t know if other disability communities are the same.

"Identity as" is a clumsy term in this context. I'm not disabled enough for a blue badge etc. I have MS. You can't tell by looking at me. Sometimes I need a seat or I need extra time to complete a task or I'm not well enough to do stuff. I didn't choose this. I'm not "identifying as" having MS some days and not others. I have MS. It's not too bad. I am up front and tell people because it makes it easier for them to understand my bad days.

That question is worded like that to allow people to identify out of a category they might be in, depending on context, not for non disabled people to identify into.

Well the phrase is wrong. I don't identify as having MS. I have MS.

I don't know how this can be solved though.

Some people, me included, don't consider themselves to be disabled, even though looking at me you might think that I am. Other people might not look disabled but are. Not everyone with the same condition will be affected in the same way so it's not even as simple as naming conditions and then saying everyone with X condition has a disability. Other people with fairly minor conditions might be badly affected by them and have a disability as a result.

I think asking individuals if they consider themselves to have a disability is probably the right balance here.

"Consider " works for me.

This question has come up before and I don't really see how to resolve it. Some people favour the language of 'idenity', others feel excluded by it.

My partner has single sided deafness which is an issue employers need to know about for example. He does not 'identify' as half deaf, he just is half deaf. If you asked him 'do you identify as disabled?' he'd say no. If you ask 'do you have any medical conditions that we need to take into account?' he'd say yes.

His brother suffers from schizophrenia. He has been very unwell of late, but when he was more stable absolutely loathed the term 'people with schizophrenia'. He described himself as schizophrenic (or more commonly a schizo) and did not appreciate do gooders telling him his own description of the extremely distressing illness that he, not they, has to deal with was 'wrong' or 'outdated'.

This one isn't a circle I can see a way to square.

I worked with a guy who had two tin legs. He never acknowledged that he had any problem or disability.

A colleague tried to be helpful by telling him about something or other he could claim.

“Why you telling me about that? Nothing the matter with me.”

Retreat of embarrassed do-gooder.

I'm both dyspraxic and suspected autistic. I'm not seeking a diagnosis for the latter due to my field of study and concerns it may hold me back in seeking employment (there's still a lot of stigma re autism and a stigma that, although I can challenge, doing so takes up a lot of mental faculties)

Furthermore, DS is awaiting an assessment for ADHD and Dyspraxia, so he identifies as having both in lieu of his formal diagnosis that he's yet to receive.

Particularly where a lot of women are involved, there are barriers to getting diagnosed, and in respect of this, a lot of people who feel they meet sufficient criteria do self-identify as disabled.

Hope that makes sense.

I have recently filled in an application form which asked if I considered myself to be disabled. I have had to put yes, because under the equality act according to occupational health I am disabled. If I put no it is a lie. But I don’t actually want to share that information, because I think that by sharing that information I am likely to be discriminated against.

I’d agree it’s a ‘clumsy term’. I’m Autistic. I would say I have a disability but am not disabled. I’m able to work, I doubt I’d qualify for PIP. But it does impact on my life and ability to do some things.

There are degrees of disability and impairment and I think it’s trying to gauge if for the purposes of what you’re referring to in that specific instance, do you think your disability would impact on it?

I'm HOH. I could be labelled as having a disability but I don't feel as if it's serious enough to have one, so I don't identify as disabled if that makes sense?

Completely agree with others, this is so disabled people can choose not to reveal it if they want to and has been this way for a very long time. I am deaf and will say so. There is only one adjustment for me at work, but 99% of people I meet would have no clue I am deaf. That doesn't mean I'm not disabled (though I certainly don't feel I should have any entitlement to certain provisions available for disabled people in general.)

This is at least the second time I've seen identify as disabled drawn into the debate on feminism recently. Stop picking holes in the way a minoriry is treated to try and have another go at a different one.

I have a degenerative condition that may be or become a disability depending on various things. I don't consider myself disabled now, although I need to make adjustments for it. When I was waiting for diagnosis - ages! due to waiting for scans etc - I obviously had no official medical documentation stating I had this so for a intends and purposes I was just self identifying as disabled. As I could pick an choose when to reveal this depending on what I was doing. Office work - no. Retail jobs - definitely needed to. For example. Im not eligible for disability benefits but theres a number of things I cannot and will not ever be able to do because of it, that do affect my working life. So disability isn't clear cut and is hard to measure.

I was discussing the difficulty of even getting shortlisted for interviews once they have sussed out that I am late fifties from their sly questions about education. The person I was talking to actually said that I should say I have a disability to get a guarenteed interview. I was a bit perplexed at that. Mind you the way my hips and knees feel these days it wouldn't be a huge untruth.

I was discussing the difficulty of even getting shortlisted for interviews once they have sussed out that I am late fifties from their sly questions about education. The person I was talking to actually said that I should say I have a disability to get a guarenteed interview. I was a bit perplexed at that. Mind you the way my hips and knees feel these days it wouldn't be a huge untruth.

My local council offers 'guarenteed interviews' for disabled people.

They advertised for a trainee teacher of the deaf. They wanted a willingness to learn BSL and a few other bits.

I have a degree in Deaf Studies, fluent BSL, a teaching qualification and a disability. I didn't even get an interview.

I chased it up and apparently as I had delivered training on an inset day they didn't interview me.

It’s a perfect way of putting the question for me.

If asked if I have a disability (in circs where I need to disclose) then the answer if ‘yes’.

But do I consider myself disabled, or require any particular adjustments? No

This is at least the second time I've seen identify as disabled drawn into the debate on feminism recently. Stop picking holes in the way a minoriry is treated to try and have another go at a different one.

Or, try framing it as "this doesn't make sense to me, I'll ask a bunch of sensible women"?

I've only seen it phrased as 'consider yourself disabled' and/or 'require any adjustments'.

I do think 'identify as disabled' is a clumsy way of asking.

Do you consider yourself to be disabled?
And then include the EA2010 definition of disabled:

The EA definition is actually pretty objective and there's statutory guidance to help you assess yourself. Where I found the statutory guidance really helpful was assessing my own fluctuating condition. Migraine has no adverse effects most of the time, but when I have one, I am severely visually-impaired, in agonising pain, and cannot walk unassisted. I never know when the next one will strike so I self-exclude from activities where it would be unsafe for me to come down with a migraine during the activity. And yes, all that makes something that happens less than ten times per year a disability.

@SushiGo Posters with disabilities are telling you that "identity" language is harming us. Stop talking over disabled people.

Posters with disabilities are telling you that "identity" language is harming us. Stop talking over disabled people.

I think that's quite unfair. People with disabilities should have the right to describe themselves however they want.

As we can see from the posts here disability covers such an enormous range and will encompass people who are ventilated in a wheelchair and unable to move all the way down to someone like yourself who gets migraines 10 times a year. Clearly 1 term can't cover all of those experiences and I do think there is a difference between asking "do you have a disability" and " so you identify as being disabled". For me it's figuring out which question now going to obtain the most relevant answer for the purpose. Do they want to know what practical considerations I need or are they trying to find out my feelings about my condition?

People with disabilities should have the right to describe themselves however they want.

Yes, they should, and forms asking "do you consider yourself disabled for EA2010 purposes?" should always have a "not telling you" option for people who aren't comfortable with that model of disclosure.

My point is that "identify as" language is minimising and harmful. Disability isn't something that I identify into nor as nor with. I would love not to have another migraine ever again. I would love to be free of depression. It's not "part of my identity" (term used by a trainer on a course I was on that made my eyes roll so far that I strained some of the ocular muscles) but a thing I would get rid of asap if I had the chance. By asking me whether I "identify as disabled", you are denying me a way to say "I am disabled, this is objective fact that can be tested against defined criteria".

It's like describing someone with a food allergy as "having a dietary preference": it's trivialising something that's actually very serious and life-changing and making it seem like a feeling or a choice when it's not.