"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 don't know. I am in both camps. Objectively I have a disability but I dont always identify as being disabled and I don't always want to say that I have a disability, even though it's likely obvious.

It's a hugely complicated issue. I suppose for a lot of people their difficulties may not qualify under the EA but they might still identify, at that time, as being disabled.

So, a person with a broken leg wouldn't qualify and yet they may actually, at the time, have more of a disability than someone with say, infrequent migraine attacks.

I used to describe myself as a mass of minor ailments which I tended to just ignore. Thus, I managed to get to just over 40 yo before I had to throw in the towel and admit that everything was now too severe, I could no longer work, barely get out of bed. I still didn't 'identify' as being disabled, and still don't. I have to acknowledge that I am because that is the reality. If I could do without the help of the State then I would, but I can't, so I have to face the fact that I AM disabled whetjheri identify as disabled or not.

I don't need or want to be pussyfooted around with this crap. If you don't need the help then just say no, and if you do then say so.

I don’t see myself as disabled though. My cognitive function is unaffected, and I am fitter than I have ever been (marathon training). I do not require any adjustments.

I just happen to be living with cancer. Incurable, but completely suppressed by advanced inhibitor drugs. I am as ‘able’ as I have ever been. But do ‘qualify’ under the act.

If I became more unwell (my Damoclean sword), then I might wish to identify as disabled. But right now I am very glad of language options which give me the choice

I am visually impaired from birth and an occasional cane user. I am classed as disabled, I consider myself to have a disability, being disabled is not part of my identity nor is it how I would ever choose to identify myself. I think if I ever encountered the question phrased this way I would be quite annoyed, there are myriad ways that I identify myself but disabled isn’t one of them.

What comes across to me in lots of posts here is how many people are disabled but don't want to see themselves as such. Still a lot of stigma around which needs to be addressed.

It is a complex issue Spartacus and not necessarily about just stigma.

I do not have any disabilities myself and can only speak of those I am close to.

My partner would not call himself disabled, not because hearing loss isn't a disability, but because he considers it a trivial one in the grand scheme of things. There are times when it causes him problems. He can't make out individual voices against background noise. He needs colleagues to be aware that he won't hear them if they are on his deaf side and will miss information, or appear rude. But he doesn't need any financial support from the state. There aren't many jobs he can't do. He feels using the word 'disabled' about himself trivialised the much greater struggles of others.

My brother in law would also not use the word 'disabled' about himself. He'd use the term 'mentally ill' because his condition is very definitely a mental rather than physical illness. He is entitled to financial support from the state when not hospitalised as he is right now. He is not able to work. Side effects of the anti-psychotics he takes make him pretty much unemployable. Being off his meds makes him dangerously unstable to himself and others. It is perfectly reasonable that he is entitled to disability benefits. He isn't bothered by stigma. There was an effort a while ago to stop people using the word schizophrenic about people like him and replace it with the phrase 'people living with schizophrenia' He hates that, his reaction to it is 'fuck that, I'm a fucking schizo, get over it'. Yet clearly some people feel differently or the concept would not have arisen to start with.

This is the heart of the problem. Disability covers an enormous range of people with wildly different conditions,, some physical, some cognitive and those people all have different views on how they wish to be described and addressed, and different views on what terms are stigmatising. It is very difficult to find language that will be acceptable to all.

a person with a broken leg wouldn't qualify and yet they may actually, at the time, have more of a disability than someone with say, infrequent migraine attacks.

That's the law though, and part of why the law say what it says is to reflect that an acute injury like a fractured tibia isn't lifelong, even though it is incredibly inconvenient for the three months or so it takes for the bone to heal and strength to return. You're not spending the rest of your life wondering when the hammer will next fall.

I just happen to be living with cancer. ... If I became more unwell (my Damoclean sword)

And that Damoclean sword is why you qualify, for the same reasoning as I do with my migraines. You don't know when the hammer will fall for you.

"Do you have a medical condition which, under the Equality Act 2010, would enable you to request reasonable adjustments?

Yes*
No
Prefer not to say

*If yes, do you require reasonable adjustments to be considered at this point?

Yes
No"

It's as objective as it can be, it gives the option of not disclosing, it acknowledges that not everyone who has a disability and is happy to say so needs adjustments right now, and it points the focus on disclosure towards the reasonable adjustments which really is the only reason anyone needs to know about a disability - do they/we/I need to do something specific to accommodate your needs or not?

A disability doesn't have to be lifelong and my point is about the phrase "identifying as". So, no a person with a broken law doesn't have a disability by law but they might say that they are identifying as having a disability at that point.

Neuro-diverse conditions like Autism aren’t medical conditions so that doesn’t work. Not all disabilities are medical.

I have a condition that is considered a disability. However, if don't consider myself as disabled as it is fully controlled by medication so I don't need allowances to be made or help in any way. Others with the same condition that isn't managed so well would need the allowances and support

social model of disability as opposed to the medical model of disability divides impairment as the attribute that affects you & disability as the social caused barriers that stop you taking part in society (brief summary) However - many people with "mental" impairments/difficulties/issues/disabilities (ie those with Learning Disabilities, ASD, Mental Health Issues etc) consider this is too narrow. The problem with assessing disability as being something profound is that self identification of such an impairment is far more complex & variable for many. For instance, do you consider your disability as central to your identity or is it separate from it? I would argue that for many it is more external than that unless you are forced by society to constantly own a disable id to get the social support to live independently in society, Hence the constant repeating difficulty of having to view whether your difficulty constitutes an impairment & a disability.

A disability doesn't have to be lifelong

It must have lasted, or be likely to last, two years or more. The two examples I picked were lifelong, hence my use of the term.

and my point is about the phrase "identifying as".

So's mine.

So, no a person with a broken law doesn't have a disability by law but they might say that they are identifying as having a disability at that point.

Which is why "do you identify as disabled?" is the wrong question! The Equality Act is the law and the question is about complying with the law, not humouring someone who is unhappy about being in a cast for eight weeks.

My oh currently is dasables, but last year he wasn,t and next year he may not be. (Because of a neurological condition.) So it,s not always cut and dry.

We have to stop being scared of the word disability. If you are disadvantaged long-term as a result of physical, medical, neurological, mental health etc then you are disabled. The whole point of the social model is that disability isn't fully located in the individual, there are social, institutional and structural factors at play which can make us more or less disabled at any one point.

I'm quoting that because it's absolutely on point. There's no shame in being disabled. Anyone who excludes you because you're disabled, when they could have included you, should feel ashamed.

With respect bd67th you can choose how you want to describe yourself or your condition and you should respect how others choose to describe themselves.

I don't choose to describe myself as having a disability and that works for me.

Under the EA I am named as disabled (MS) but I don't identify as being disabled.

People are very touchy about all this stuff, aren’t they? Maybe they could stop taking offence at the language used and just get on with life? Most of the people using forms don’t have any say in how they are written and most of the people writing forms aren’t telepathic.

Too much attention to this kind of thing could leave everyone else thinking that the taking of offence was an important part of the situation, whereas I’m sure everyone just wants to be treated appropriately.

With respect bd67th you can choose how you want to describe yourself or your condition and you should respect how others choose to describe themselves.

Real life requires more rigorous definitions than self-identification. Someone without a PhD doesn't get to self-id as having one and shouldn't be respected for trying to do so because that's academic fraud. I respect people's decision not to disclose their disability but I do not and will not accept someone without a disability "identifying as disabled", even if they have a broken leg.

Words have meanings.

I know a number of people who do have disabilities formally recognised but they personally don't identify themselves as disabled.

bd67th

That was 1 example. Most of us are saying that under the legal definition we have a disability but that we don't identify as disabled and yet you're berating us and telling us that we should be proud of our disabilities etc. It really isn't for you to tell others how to describe their own conditions.

People are very touchy about all this stuff, aren’t they? Maybe they could stop taking offence at the language used and just get on with life?

Did you read my post at the top of page two about how some language trivialises things that are actually serious and life-affecting, and that this can be harmful?

I'll repeat the second paragraph: 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.

I don't "identify as" having migraines, I have them: it's objective fact, not a matter of opinion.