Did DEI Dump Disability for ‘Pride And Parties’? Grunwald and Fielding

[RethinkingLife]

Tanya de Grunwald continues her excellent podcast series.

Are neurodiversity, mental health and 'LGBT' winning the war for employers' attention - while disability has been sidelined? Has the 'lived experience' industry become superficial and exploitative? And have staff networks turned into unsupervised - and even dangerous - group therapy sessions in the workplace?

Disability rights campaigner George Fielding doesn't want to 'be kind' if it means endlessly affirming fragility – or pretending that groups who need additional support aren't competing for employers’ attention and resources. And he says the era of 'no debate' is over. It's time to talk. People will have different ideas about priorities and paths to success on disability but ‘We’ll never make progress if we can’t be honest.’ In this groundbreaking new episode of This Isn't Working, we ask:

DO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FEEL ABANDONED BY EMPLOYERS who seem to have prioritised issues such as neurodiversity, mental health, and ‘LGBT’ in discussions about DEI (AKA 'EDI' in the UK)? (Spoiler: Yes!)

ARE ‘LIVED EXPERIENCE’ TRAINERS DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD? Where is the due diligence on the disability consultants who employers are inviting in – and is this expertise, or just oversharing? Do they understand the Equality Act? What unhealthy messages do they promote to impressionable audiences – and will the results only ever be superficial, as opposed to systemic?

HOW DO DISABILITY, NEURODIVERSITY AND TRANS IDENTITIES INTERSECT IN THE WORKPLACE? Is it appropriate for employers to be hosting conversations which result from poor sex and relationship education and mental health support for those with additional needs? If staff networks have become co-rumination bubbles, activist groups or unsupervised group therapy sessions, should employers shut them down and move these discussions out of the workplace?

IS IT UNWISE TO LET SUCH RAW LIVED EXPERIENCE SHAPE COMPANY POLICY? After a long wait, an ADHD diagnosis can feel like a ‘reward,’ says George. This can create a sense of ‘rebirth’ and feed an urge to seek justice for past failure or discrimination. Have you considered this, or taken these employees’ views at face value?

DOES LANGUAGE MATTER? Views will vary, but George isn’t fussed. (There are only three words he doesn’t like!) In fact, he thinks language policing is actually holding back debate. ‘If we’re still arguing over which words we use, we’re never going to have the discussions we need, to move things forward.’

WHY ARE THERE STILL SO FEW PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN SENIOR LEADERSHIP ROLES? George explains that employed disabled people often feel so grateful to be in work that they hesitate when it comes to pushing for a promotion, or risking finding a new employer. Have you considered this?

We share George’s view that this vital conversation has stalled – and employers have lost focus. Despite all the controversy around #DEI, it is hard to find anyone who doesn’t think people with disabilities should be prioritised, and #AccessToWork improved.

Are neurodiversity, mental health and 'LGBT' winning the war for employers' attention - while disability has been sidelined?

multipart answer:

1. from what I can see, LGB is being assimilated as business-as-usual.
2. in the volumes they are currently presenting, demands from neurodiversity, mental health and ‘T’ (plus QI etc) are unaffordable for most private sector employers. Different situation in public sector, 3rd sector and academia.
3. Disability has been sidelined.

I would say that some aspects of neuro diversity and poor mental health are absolutely disabilities,and it's rather depressing that in 2025 I'm reading someone writing about disability as if it only applies to visible, physical disability.

QED

Brilliant, thanks for the link @RethinkingLife

It’s a podcast. There is a chapter breakdown of the overall discussion where they discuss this so there’s no need to listen to the whole if there is limited time.

There is a question of what employers can support (too often relying on non-credentialed people who are not qualified to deliver the support they offer). This contrasts with GPs who have so few resources that they signpost to local organisations that don’t have resources and may not be appropriate.

Who is responsible for delivering appropriate care and support?

That's not what the podcast or OP are saying. They are saying that more lifestyle issues like gender identity are dominating rather than disability, and I agree.

My daughter has avlearning disability. IQ of 56. She used to be on a working group in our LA to make information from the LA and local NHS accessible to people like her. They rewrote information, gave talks to management etc. It was great.

But that is no longer a priority. "Inclusive language" doesn't mean people like her, or those with English as a foreign language. No, now it is all about gender inclusivity - "people with a cervix", "menstruators". And no one has had a chance to object.

Things like LGB or even race are usually fairly easy for employers as they don't inherently impact people's work or sociability.

Disability and MH issues can concrete impact work in all kinds of ways, and increasingly I think they shouldn't be considered within the same kinds of frameworks.

‘If we’re still arguing over which words we use, we’re never going to have the discussions we need, to move things forward.’

How can we even have discussions about women’s rights if all our words are stolen from us?

My daughter has avlearning disability. IQ of 56. She used to be on a working group in our LA to make information from the LA and local NHS accessible to people like her. They rewrote information, gave talks to management etc. It was great.

That may seem great for your daughter who was granted the privileged position of being part of a group that had two huge local organisations rewrite information specifically in line with her needs and which gave talks to management about how to meet her specific requirements. Having people put so much effort in to tailoring and training an organisation around the needs of half a dozen people is wonderful if you are one of them. But can you not see the danger in this approach?

I think the average reading age of a British adult is something like eleven. Making guidelines etc readable by people with intellectual disabilities will help some people who don't have those (diagnosed) disabilities but who struggle with literacy and doesnt harm anyone else, I don't think, so I don't see the problem. As long as the information given remains full and factual, why NOT make it accessible?

I'm not sure what you mean by "danger", can you explain a bit more about that?

Making information genuinely accessible, i.e. plain English clearly expressed, benefits everyone, not just "half a dozen people".

I find it unbelievable that nobody cares if businesses don’t provide a ramp so that I can get into their premises (as a paying customer) or god forbid an accessible loo but if they were to “misgender” me I can call the police.
Fucking ridiculous.

Because addressing accessibility for us disabled people often involves significant adjustments, effort and financial outlay. With the other things they can get away with saying words and doing bugger all, which is easier and cheaper.

Because addressing accessibility for us disabled people often involves significant adjustments, effort and financial outlay.

There was a thread on here recently about the train company (in the North East?) that spent £££ on painting a train in rainbow colours for "inclusivity".

Meanwhile, I cannot begin to list the number of very real problems people with disabilities, both visible and non-visible, experience when trying to travel by train.

They just don’t care. Painting the train is cheap and easy by comparison. The looks a wheelchair user gets when they have the audacity to need the wheelchair space that people think is for their bikes/prams/luggage/musical instruments/shopping/furniture/bird cages/garden sheds/belligerent great aunties tell you all you need to know. Sorry to be negative but this is something I’m quite down about at the moment.

You really don’t see the danger of rewriting information and training management on the direction of a small working group of vested interests?

That specific group might have had a good outcome and the presentation of information may have become more accessible more broadly including to those with different disabilities or languages, or it may have enabled the local authority and NHS to tick a box that ignored the needs those with eg dyslexia or visual impairment who were not present in the group etc. Or (as we have repeatedly seen) activists within the group may have used the opportunity to removed sexed language and reduce women to dehumanising body parts and functions.

Too many people think if the apparent intent looks good then the outcome will also be good.

That's awful, your poor daughter.

Small ‘equality’ working groups full of activists being allowed to direct organisations is exactly why we are in this mess.

I'm stunned by your response.

The information wasn't rewritten just for people with special needs - she was part of a working party to make information accessible to people with poor literacy skills, which includes people with special needs. Learning disability is part of that cohort but is not the only one.

In fact, 18% of the population over the age of 18 or 6.6 million people, have poor literacy skills. In the north east it is 23%.

There is actual proof of the side-lining of disability rights in favour of transgenderism - how many times have we seen accessible toilets suggested as the 'safe third space' for able-bodied trans people who refuse to use the toilet designated for their sex?

There are even cases on record of accessible toilets being officially changed from disabled to 'gender-neutral' etc.

People with disabilities campaigned for decades and decades for accessible toilets. Now, with a complete disregards for their needs and hard-won rights, trans demands overrule the provision of disabled-only toilets, just as they do for women-only toilets.

For goodness sake, we are talking about a group of young people with Downs Syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, severe autism, significant learning difficulties, who got together a couple of times a year to help local organisations make information they could understand. They are not "activists". I am utterly perplexed by your take here. Do you genuinely think that disability initiatives aren't appropriate?

What would those "vested interests" be, in this case? Enabling people with learning difficulties, language issues, poor literacy skills etc to properly understand information and have their real needs taken into account so they can participate fully in society like people without those needs can?

No, I don't see the "danger" in that.

I understand the point you're trying to make but you're conflating very different issues and it's not helpful.

I think ANY working groups are liable to group think, to activism, to failure to see beyond the needs of the group. It is fairly cheap and easy to simply listen to a small group rather than take their requests and explore how respresentative they are of the broader community or whether they impact on the rights of other groups.

Do you not think people also said the same about gender ideology?

“For goodness sake, we are talking about a group of trans young people who got together a couple of times a year to help local organisations make information meet their needs. They are not "activists". I am utterly perplexed by your take here. Do you genuinely think that trans initiatives aren't appropriate?”

Maybe I'm going crazy, but enabling people with special needs to engage with society has been seen as worthwhile for the last 60 years or so. Previous to that they were often locked away in institutions, families encouraged to forget about them.

So my local authority followed Gov instructions as part of the SEN Code of Practice to include young people in decision making about their futures. They set up an inclusivity group. My daughter used to be part of the interviewing process for people working with young people with additional needs as part of this group - it wasn't just about literature.

Yes you could rewrite my paragraph with any group in mind. But there is a statutory duty for local authorities to include young people with special educational needs. This does not apply to trans people. And you are just engaging in whataboutary. The issue we are discussing is how disability inclusion has been dropped in favour of trans inclusion. Your argument seems to be that we should drop disability inclusion because it is a gateway to trans inclusion. So back to the 60s for disabled people, especially those with special needs, then? Can't read the letters the hospital sent you? Too bad. Can't book an appointment on the GP app? Too bad.

The real life impact of making allowances for the needs of disabled people and trans people are a million miles apart. One group is offended, the other can't take part in society.

I can't believe you are conflating the two.

You are playing right into the hands of TRAs here, AshKeys, by making everything comparable to transactivism/gender ideology. By making it the benchmark by which all other issues are judged.

Lots of issues stand on their own and are not comparable to GI. This is one of those.

Arran2024 already made the point that the information wasn't rewritten just for people with special needs, i.e. to the exclusion of everyone else. Many people benefit from clearly written communication. That is the opposite of GI-focused communication which serves to obfuscate and complicate and exclude.

How do you think clear communications for people with lower literacy levels "impact on the rights of other groups"?