Yes, and it's still unclear to me how it'd be applied here.

The related "veil of ignorance" test also applies.

Would you advocate for the systematic mistreatment of group X if you didn't know whether or not you yourself would be born as part of that group?

Appealing to the veil is a good but insufficient step. For instance, we might disagree what people would agree on behind the veil (imo because we encode moral assumptions into our conclusions from it). Nonetheless, if we were to get that far I'd say the veil would be doing its job.

For example, suppose I beleive in the systematic rejection of blind people from bus driving positions. I can see myself getting behind this even if I wouldn't know whether I'd be blind or not because I imagine behind the veil I'd put greater moral value associated with the safety of bus passengers than blind people's rights to the bus driving job. In other words, I've exposed the "driving" moral valuation behind my stance.