Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,186
  • Total Topics: 106,349
  • Online Today: 767
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 06:12:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Self-identity and disability

Started by Jockice, August 09, 2022, 07:44:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jockice

Yes, it's me again with my favourite subject, one that I know most of you haven't experienced and couldn't give a shit about.

But look. The Society Of Authors has announced a new award for authors who 'self identify as disabled.' Which has attracted exactly the response you'd expect from the people you'd expect. I recognise some of these names from skimming comments on gender self-identity.

But they can fuck off. I mean, I've been disabled since I was five or so and it took me till I was about 30 to come to terms with it and admit I am one of 'them.'  I can remember cases where people would refer to me as disabled and I'd get/upset angry with them. You know, one of those 'temper tantrums' us lot are so prone to.

I've always been pretty sure of my gender and sexuality but (straight male but not macho if you must know) but for those with doubts/problems in this regard I should imagine it's a similarly tortuous route, maybe even worse if what you appear to be is not what you feel like. I've always been unable to hide my impairments - and take it from me, I've tried - but there are advantages and disadvantages in both cases.

Right, better start  writing a book so I can enter the awards. I have till the end of October. Piece of piss.

https://twitter.com/Soc_of_Authors/status/1555156215042396163

Zetetic

It does seem a bit redundant, as a description, even more so than the usual "self-identifiy as" qualifiers. (Edit: Although it's fine to clarify the acceptance criteria of course.)

It's not like there's any "gold-standard" determination of "disabled" - anyone can get on their local authority's register (assuming they have one), anyone can buy a RADAR key...

TrenterPercenter

@Jockice I'm not sure whether there is something really wrong with my comprehension at the moment so forgive me if I'm being ignorant here.

Is it that people have a problem with the term "self identify" because people don't believe people can self identify or non-identify as disabled? Isn't it the latter that is particularly key here?

Dr Rock

I'm guessing some people feel its reductive

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Dr Rock on August 09, 2022, 08:37:49 AMI'm guessing some people feel its reductive

How so? Surely giving someone the ability to either identify or not identify is less reductive than having an identity cast on you?

Zetetic

It's reductive both:
1. That it doesn't tell you anything about the nature of anyone's impairments and function, or the specific adjustments that others could make for them.
2. It places the "disability" on the person, rather than between them and the world and society in which they live.

Zetetic

1 is part of the reason there's no "gold-standard" for disabled/not-disabled - the only sensible questions-and-answers pretty context-sensitive.

The closest we come to a meaningful individual-level standard of "disabled" is "do you want to use an accessible toilet?" and that's by having a setup that's designed to be more accessible in an fairly diverse set of ways (and even then, many of them should be much better for people with sensory impairments, arguably).

(Edit: You could sort of point to fit-to-work assessments, I guess, but the name rather gives the game away as to the narrow focus.)

Edit: And 2 is arguable, just on closer reading. If you like, it still leaves open the question of "disabled by what?"

shoulders

🎶It's me, it's me, on Jockice, on Jockice, on I, on I, on disability on disability. It's me, it's me, on Jockice, on Jockice, on I, on I, on disability, on disability 🎶




(This isn't making any point it just reminded me of that bit.)

Jockice

Well the thing about it for me is that some people in the comments seem to assume that non-disabled writers (ie those with no health problems at all) will see it as a way to win an award that they are not eligible for, just having happened to have written a novel with a disabled character in it. Which to me comes across as ridiculous as men 'pretending' to be women to win sports events for females or to molest women in their toilets. It just doesn't make sense.

But in my time I have met people who are more physically disabled than me but don't like being called disabled and people who don't appear disabled to me but claim they are. I used to joke about them saying things to me like: "I'm disabled too. I had a really bad cold in 1985." This is an exaggeration but really not all that much. A mate of mine who has always been physically fit but has also always had serious mental health issues has only recently accepted that he is disabled and he's in his mid-50s like me. I bet if he wrote a book and entered this award some people would want him disqualified because he doesn't look it.

Anyway in general if someone self-identifies as disabled that's fine by me. As long as they don't try to nick my parking space without a blue badge it's really not my concern.

Personally, I identify as an attack helicopter. One that's broken!


TrenterPercenter

Thanks Jockice - I thought that might be the case.

Kankurette

I sort of get it - I identify as disabled because autism and chronic pain due to arthritis and fibromyalgia do have an impact on my lifestyle. Like, standing up for long periods hurts my legs, hips and back. I went to see three bands in a row at Rebellion, all of whom played for at least an hour, and by the time Squeeze ended, I was in so much pain I could barely walk.

Shaxberd

The phrase "identify as" is going to annoy some people, but realistically, how else could they do it? Asking to see someone's medical records before they can enter for a book prize would be wildly disproportionate.

Jockice

Quote from: Kankurette on August 09, 2022, 09:00:39 AMI sort of get it - I identify as disabled because autism and chronic pain due to arthritis and fibromyalgia do have an impact on my lifestyle. Like, standing up for long periods hurts my legs, hips and back. I went to see three bands in a row at Rebellion, all of whom played for at least an hour, and by the time Squeeze ended, I was in so much pain I could barely walk.

I always assumed Rebellion was a hardcore punk festival but yesterday someone mentioned Altered Images on the line-up so I looked up who else was on. And there was some great stuff. I mean I like hardcore punk but can only take so much of it. This was far more diverse.

Incidentally Squeeze are literally the only musical act on earth that my girlfriend and I are in agreement on the greatness of. I don't mind her love for Joe Jackson and Petula Clark but apart from that...

Anyway, I digress. Probably a side effect of the drugs. Prescription ones of course.

Jockice

Quote from: Shaxberd on August 09, 2022, 09:11:29 AMThe phrase "identify as" is going to annoy some people, but realistically, how else could they do it? Asking to see someone's medical records before they can enter for a book prize would be wildly disproportionate.

Indeed. That's what I was referring to. Papers please.

Zetetic

But also ineffective - it's not as though everyone with a disability will have this recorded in their "medical records. And every alternative - most obviously LA registers - is voluntary and open to anyone on the basis of self-ID anyway.

Zetetic

And the plan for much of the UK is that anyone will be able to add to their Summary Care Record (or equivalent, outside of England) to identify "reasonable adjustments" they might require (in the context of the Disability-related bits of the Equality Act) - effectively self-identifying in their "medical records" as having a disability (requiring an adjustment) in the process.

dissolute ocelot

Most prizes, awards, scholarships, etc for ethnic minority writers/students/etc are done on the basis of self-identification: anything else would be icky to say the least. The Women's Prize for Fiction (formerly the Orange prize) doesn't have any definition of woman (Torrey Peters was the first trans woman to be longlisted), although it relies on publishers to gatekeep and longlisted/shortlisted authors must attend events, so maybe they peer closely at you then.

Dr Rock

Are YOU disabled? Not colour-blind or shit like that, proper disabled. Wheelchair ones preferable.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Shaxberd on August 09, 2022, 09:11:29 AMThe phrase "identify as" is going to annoy some people, but realistically, how else could they do it? Asking to see someone's medical records before they can enter for a book prize would be wildly disproportionate.

Yep exactly and it's just good to let people self-identify their disabilities.  Having worked with people with profound disabilities in the past there is unsurprisingly a lot of variation between how people conditions impact on their abilities. 

I thought we'd got past this old discriminatory idea? Some 20 years ago when I was training we worked to the actual definition of disability i.e. the difficulties in ability that people experience due to their physical or mental health conditions.  This was known as "person centred" because it sought to allow the person to lead their rehabilitation, and for the person to inform practitioners of how their condition affected them and not simply telling them what their condition needs.

Zetetic

Quote from: dissolute ocelot on August 09, 2022, 09:58:27 AMMost prizes, awards, scholarships, etc for ethnic minority writers/students/etc are done on the basis of self-identification: anything else would be icky to say the least.
We have access to free medical services in some cases on the basis of self-defined ethnicity, because there's no other basis on which you could do this.

(The example that I'm aware of also allows for self-reported "I think there's something the matter with my eye", so the whole eligibility setup seems completely pointless in that particular case anyway...)

Jockice

That's not to say that there aren't people who pretend to be disabled/exaggerate their disabilities to claim benefits etc (there was one on telly this morning) but I should guess these are few and far between and get disproportionate media coverage. Although as a former journo I can see why it's a story. But so is people not getting benefits they're entitled to and you rarely see stuff about that in the mainstream media.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: Zetetic on August 09, 2022, 11:14:36 AMWe have access to free medical services in some cases on the basis of self-defined ethnicity, because there's no other basis on which you could do this.

How do you mean? Is this just the general sense of "this condition tends to only affect people who happen to be of this ethnicity"?

One of my pals unfortunately had renal medullary carcinoma, which is a pretty rare thing to have generally, but was considered very unusual in his case because it's generally associated with sickle-cell traits and he (I suppose a form of self-identification) was white with no recent/known ancestry that would give him that.

But in that example I wouldn't have thought treatment would ever be conditional, however diagnosis judgement may be clouded.

Zetetic

We have an urgent eye check scheme that is free for certain people, including people of "Black or Asian ethnicity" - which of course is only self-defined.

(But since it's also free for people with "any eye problem that needs urgent attention", and without having had the eye check that's up to the person asking for it, it seems completely pointless. Clearly it's a sop to a civil servant somewhere who was terrified that millions of people would suddenly demand spurious eye checks, but also believed that these people wouldn't be prepared to lie on a green bit of paper.)

(Edit: Also quite unhelpful, since you have to fill in a form swearing that you have an urgent eye problem, while having an urgent eye problem.)

Zetetic

It's particularly odd because, and linking back to the OP, some of the options for eligibility are absolutely not self-ID-based. For example, being "sight-impaired" (and on your LA's register as such) involves certification by an opthalmologist.

Jockice

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on August 09, 2022, 11:26:37 AMHow do you mean? Is this just the general sense of "this condition tends to only affect people who happen to be of this ethnicity"?

One of my pals unfortunately had renal medullary carcinoma, which is a pretty rare thing to have generally, but was considered very unusual in his case because it's generally associated with sickle-cell traits and he (I suppose a form of self-identification) was white with no recent/known ancestry that would give him that.

But in that example I wouldn't have thought treatment would ever be conditional, however diagnosis judgement may be clouded.


I can beat that. My condition is so unusual - and still not fully diagnosed - that at one point they thought it was one that is almost totally limited to people living in equatorial areas. It even has the word 'tropical' in the title.

I'm so pale I can verge on translucent - if you're Facebook friends with me take a look at the photo I posted on Sunday and check out my arms compared with those of my mates - so when a doctor asked me if there were any black people in my family I was puzzled and went: "Well, the husband of one of my cousins is, but I don't really know the guy."

She gave me a strange look and went: "Thanks, but that's not quite what I meant..."

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: Zetetic on August 09, 2022, 11:34:51 AMWe have an urgent eye check scheme that is free for certain people, including people of "Black or Asian ethnicity" - which of course is only self-defined.

(But since it's also free for people with "any eye problem that needs urgent attention", and without having had the eye check that's up to the person asking for it, it seems completely pointless. Clearly it's a sop to a civil servant somewhere who was terrified that millions of people would suddenly demand spurious eye checks, but also believed that these people wouldn't be prepared to lie on a green bit of paper.)

(Edit: Also quite unhelpful, since you have to fill in a form swearing that you have an urgent eye problem, while having an urgent eye problem.)

Ah ok I might've overlooked that because all eye checks are free here.

I presume if you had an accident serious enough to warrant A&E having someone go over your eyes with a slit-lamp would fall outside of this?

Zetetic

Yeah, of course.

The context is eye checks performed by private "community" optometrists (e.g. Specsavers, Vision Express, Boots), which is where the terror of fraud comes in.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Jockice on August 09, 2022, 07:44:50 AMThe Society Of Authors has announced a new award for authors who 'self identify as disabled.'

Why? You don't need to be undisabled to write.

Jockice


TrenterPercenter

Quote from: checkoutgirl on August 09, 2022, 12:12:31 PMWhy? You don't need to be undisabled to write.

The MOBO awards moonwalks out of the thread