Marathon runners `harrassed'

[Watis]

"handicapped"

Mel

OK, serious question:

What is the politically correct term these days?

Disabled? Impaired?

TIA,

Watis

[dionaeamuscipula]

"handicapped"

Mel

OK, serious question:

What is the politically correct term these days?

Disabled? Impaired?

TIA,

Watis

In swimming: multi classification

In rugby: mixed ability

DM

[melonfool]

"handicapped"

Mel

OK, serious question:

What is the politically correct term these days?

Disabled? Impaired?

TIA,

Watis

Odd though it may seem, I cannot take your question as being serious when you use 'politically correct' as the identifier.

Politically correct simply means - the way I am forced to say things that I don't want to in order to play by some rules I will never understand, want to understand nor agree with.

The real question might be 'is there a term people prefer as I do not want to cause offence' [even if I don't necessarily agree that people should be offended by terms I want to use I accept their life experience is different to mine].

And there is no single answer anyway.

The key here is not to refer to being as being a *thing* but rather as being a person first and maybe having that thing as a characteristic.

So, you don't say "a black person", you might say "a person of colour", to centre the person.

You don't say "a disabled person" or indeed "the handicapped" (the term has not been aired since about 1974, plus it totally removes the person!) but you might say "a person with disabilities" or someone who needs some adaptations.

I am fully aware that there is no point trying to have this discussion on this board (as the wording of the question clearly shows), or even site, which is largely populated by middle-aged -> elderly white men. So, I shan't respond to any replies, I don't want to argue with you, we've been round this loop too many times and too many of you are simply stuck in the past.

Mel

[UncleEbenezer]

Today's polite euphemism is tomorrow's ghastly faux-pas.

I seem to have got away with "disabled" above.

[melonfool]

Today's polite euphemism is tomorrow's ghastly faux-pas.

I seem to have got away with "disabled" above.

Yes disabled is OK, but not brilliant.

The key for me is to listen to people and ask how they would like to be referred to.

I don't even mind if men want me to call them 'she' or 'her', that's fine. As long as they don't expect me to buy into the myth that a man can actually BE a woman, or expect me to call myself 'cis' - that's not happening.

Mel

[bungeejumper]

"handicapped"

"Differently abled?"

The chosen euphemisms of the day come and go. As a schoolteacher (at an all-boys comprehensive) in the 1970s I got used to hearing kids using descriptive epithets that would see them (or, more probably, their parents) up in court these days. And very cruel and insensitive they were, too. We did our best to stop them, but the insults simply changed to embrace the latest politically-correct phrasing as well.

Thus, if they wanted to tell somebody in the playground that he was a bit thick, they'd have called him "special needs". It was bullying, no doubt about that - but the trouble was, they never seemed to run out of ways to get round the terminology. I doubt that very much has changed in the intervening decades? And I gather that girls are, if anything, more skilled than boys at choosing their language?

The nuclear option that would always start a playground fight in those days was if a boy called another boy a "girl". The horror, the horror!

BJ

[UncleEbenezer]

The key for me is to listen to people and ask how they would like to be referred to.
Mel

For future reference, you can call me His Divine Radiance.

Others who don't ordinarily feel it necessary to ask can continue to refer to me as they ordinarily would.

[sg31]

Well my use of the wrong term seems to have caused a stir. I apologise to anyone who may have been offended.

It wasn't my intention to denigrate anyone, if anything I was applauding their efforts.

I will try and do better in future.

[XFool]

The key here is not to refer to being as being a *thing* but rather as being a person first and maybe having that thing as a characteristic.

So, you don't say "a black person", you might say "a person of colour", to centre the person.

I don't!

I hate hearing the terminology "a person of colour", it sounds truly awful. To me it seems to embed identity politics (racialism?) into the very language. e.g. When has anyone ever used the term "a person of whiteness"? So we should use different linguistic constructions when speaking to or of people of different colours?

I am fully aware that there is no point trying to have this discussion on this board (as the wording of the question clearly shows), or even site, which is largely populated by middle-aged -> elderly white men.

Say no more!

Sound rather like a 'microaggression' to me.

[XFool]

Well my use of the wrong term seems to have caused a stir. I apologise to anyone who may have been offended.

It wasn't my intention to denigrate anyone, if anything I was applauding their efforts.

I will try and do better in future.

In Heaven you will be judged on your intentions. On Earth, unfortunately...

[Clitheroekid]

So, you don't say "a black person", you might say "a person of colour", to centre the person.

Only if you want to deliberately offend them!

Black people that I know just want to be called people, but if for some reason it's necessary to identify them racially (say in a census) then they prefer the term `black people' because that's what they are.

How would you feel if you were described as `a person of no colour' instead of `white'? Patronised perhaps?

To call someone black `a person of colour' may well be considered offensive, because by deliberately avoiding the fact they're black you're implying that blackness is something to be ashamed of.

And here we have it from the (black) horse's mouth - https://medium.com/@journojoshua/we-sho ... c2b18e6267

You don't say "a disabled person" or indeed "the handicapped" (the term has not been aired since about 1974, plus it totally removes the person!) but you might say "a person with disabilities" or someone who needs some adaptations.

And from the (disabled) horse's mouth - https://www.autistichoya.com/2013/08/di ... abled.html

Being so desperate to avoid offence is a far more obvious sign of discrimination than using the `wrong' term. Not only is it patronising, but you're letting the person know that you consider them to be a member of a different species that has to be treated as being abnormally sensitive, thereby (albeit unconsciously) emphasizing your own perceived superiority.

[XFool]

Black people that I know just want to be called people, but if for some reason it's necessary to identify them racially (say in a census) then they prefer the term `black people' because that's what they are.

How would you feel if you were described as `a person of no colour' instead of `white'? Patronised perhaps?

Ah! But being 'white' I am a person of ALL colours.

To call someone black `a person of colour' may well be considered offensive, because by deliberately avoiding the fact they're black you're implying that blackness is something to be ashamed of.

That's the way it always strikes me. - 'Don't mention the War!'

[didds]

Ah! But being 'white' I am a person of ALL colours.

that depends on whether you mean pigment or light. Lights of colours combined make white - wheras with pigment eg painting, the absence of colours makes white. And the reverse for black of course in both cases.

didds

[XFool]

...Should it not be taken for granted I am radiant?

[bungeejumper]

that depends on whether you mean pigment or light. Lights of colours combined make white - wheras with pigment eg painting, the absence of colours makes white. And the reverse for black of course in both cases.

As EM Forster pointed out, there are no white people. We are all "pinko-grey".

BJ

[jfgw]

...Should it not be taken for granted I am radiant?

Absolutely!

Just like everyone-else who is not at absolute zero.

Julian F. G. W.

[UncleEbenezer]

...Should it not be taken for granted I am radiant?

Absolutely!

Just like everyone-else who is not at absolute zero.

Julian F. G. W.

So not the wonderful Lynne Truss?

[dealtn]

Today's polite euphemism is tomorrow's ghastly faux-pas.

I seem to have got away with "disabled" above.

Yes disabled is OK, but not brilliant.

The key for me is to listen to people and ask how they would like to be referred to.

I don't even mind if men want me to call them 'she' or 'her', that's fine. As long as they don't expect me to buy into the myth that a man can actually BE a woman, or expect me to call myself 'cis' - that's not happening.

Mel

I don't know too many people that would be considered in the category that you refer to. However the one who I listen to points out that "disabled" implies she isn't able to do things (that she often can), but having a handicap is more accurate of her description in that it acknowledges she has more difficulty, but isn't incapable.

It's not easy "listening" to others whilst simultaneously trying to please different "others".

She is also, incidentally, one of the least politically correct people I am ever likely to meet!

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I am fully aware that there is no point trying to have this discussion on this board (as the wording of the question clearly shows), or even site, which is largely populated by middle-aged -> elderly white men. So, I shan't respond to any replies, I don't want to argue with you, we've been round this loop too many times and too many of you are simply stuck in the past.

Mel

Hi Mel,

I am a person of some senior years although I find the thought of being middle aged quite terrifying. Because it means I am closer to the end of my life than the beginning. And I do have frequent thoughts about my own mortality. I too am guilty of being white. However, neither of these two facts are anything I can change or indeed have any influence over. For the most I'd like to think I make every effort to avoid the stereo-typical "middle aged, overweight, grumpy, stuck in the past, paunchy old fart" label that I have probably earned. Failure hovers relentlessly

I have spent most of my life dealing with one or two mental health issues too.

But I don't perceive myself as white or elderly. I have had some [serious] challenges to face down and feel genuinely lucky to have overcome them. I'm not on my own. Many are dealing with their own health issues too.

I think if someone referred to me as "disabled" I wouldn't quite know how to digest it. I don't feel "disabled". Indeed my symptoms are now so well managed that I am simply not "disabled". But if it helps to raise awareness of my condition so others get earlier diagnosis and treatment than me then I'll gladly accept that label. A badge I will wear with pride.

I can't apologise for being white [with grey hair too] and old. But I would like to assure you that I don't feel I fit that stereo-typical description. I work long hours in a reasonably demanding job and am committed to rebuilding my life, restoring my finances and perhaps enjoying the afternoon of my life in some modicum of peace. I have a 12 year old daughter who is dependant upon me and that's always a helpful focusing reminder when the pressures are building a little.

I have never made any effort to be politically correct. I haven't got a clue what it means. I make every effort to tolerate, but am aware, because of my illness that I haven't quite got a fantastic record accordingly. Ironically I can say that as I have aged my tolerance has improved. Noting I am no angel and there are exceptions.

And finally may I just say how sad I am that on this bank holiday weekend we are going to be treated to a dose of the great old British weather. Now that does make my blood boil

Best
AiY

[EssDeeAitch]

"handicapped"

Mel

Yes - handicapped by a disability.

My daughter and partner both have a syndrome (EDS - https://www.ehlers-danlos.org/what-is-eds/) which believe me, is a real handicap and thus, in their day to day lives they are handicapped. And they refer to themselves as handicapped, disabled and "stuffed".

Handicapped is not a swearword, or an insult or a pejorative in any way; it's a tragedy. Context, context, context.