Girls Using Walking Sticks

Isn't it obvious?

My friend has a stoma, can't tell looking at her why she has a radar key.

Another friend has MECFS, she looks fine a lot of the time but feels horrendous. She has a blue badge and twats with that "she looks ok" question why she has one.

I could go on but it's really obvious so not sure that you're not just being goady.

Some people do lie about having cancer. There have been numerous examples of people who have told others they have cancer and as a consequence have been in receipt of fund raisng money on their behalf etc The recent case of the Austrailain mushroom murderer who had her relatives over to dinner on the pretence that she had cancer, is the most recent example.

If someone tells me they have cancer, I automatically show interest, if it seems appropriate, and ask questions.

I think that when a condition is invisible or doesn't have a firm and conclusive diagnosis, but it seems to significantly impact on that person's functioning then people can end up assuming that the condition might well be emotional or psychological in origin. There does seem to be quite a number of 'vague' conditions which are difficult to prove or to get medical or scientific consensus on....that is not to say that the person is not feeling or suffering any physcal effects.

Because it means that people are not understanding that they cannot tell by looking at someone whether they, for instance, need the disabled loo, or the priority seat, or a disabled parking badge. Because it means on top of battling our disability we also have to battle judgement and disbelief every day.

Because it means we face confrontation and challenge when we go about our daily life using the accommodations we need to use.

Why is it harmful. Can you explain.

I don't know what disabled people think. That's why I wrote "I'd have thought that people who were genuinely disabled would be pissed off at at other people appropriating disability."

It's an important distinction, even if it's lost on you. But I do appreciate that becoming self-righteously angry about something that someone didn't say probably gives a bigger dopamine hit than rationally engaging with what they did say.

Very interesting! For a moment it brought to mind those Harry Potter wands you can buy in 'House of Wizards' and similar such places. Wands are symbols of power and control too, and there are numerous styles you can buy according to your specific identity. Though, of course, the queer/trans community is no longer supposed to enagage with Harry Potter.

On the contrary. I happily and openly talk about my condition. I shared how I was diagnosed and will happily answer any questions about what it is like. I am keen to raise awareness of it as I went 20 years without diagnosis and never put my different symptoms together because I hadn't heard of it.

I am just really curious by the " have you been formally diagnosed" question. Because I don't see that asked if someone shares they have cancer. Or a broken leg. So what is it about certain conditions that makes that the next question you ask?

It comes a cross that your determination that nobody must ask questions or show interest in your condition is acting as some sort of defence mechanism.

My sense is that when you are not to supposed to ask questions about something and when there is ridicule and censure when you do, then you actually need to start looking a lot more closely and asking even more questions.Vaccinations have become one of the forbidden topics. It is cult like the way that people monitor others and try to call out conspiracy at the slightest hint of query.

I've been considering the steep rise in childhood allergies too, especially to dairy.....and it seems as if most vaccinations are produced using egg and milk proteins. The purpose of a vaccination, of course, is to stimulate the body into developing an immunity response to certain types of vaccination 'content'.

Some allergies can be triggered by stress and emotion. i have a friend who developed a peanut allergy quite later on in her adult life. It first occured in conjunction with a very upsetting incident/moment which led to the break-up of her marriage. I recall the same sort of heavily charged emotional situation in myself, but in my case with asparagus, though not life threatening.

Definitely! Pharmaceuticals and vaccinations have become 'the thing you must not question'.

Of course.
I don't see what relevance that has to my comment.

They are a pair of pathological liars (to quote their nephew). So was Belle Gibson.

So my point stands. If someone on Mumsnet said they had cancer I have never seen the next question be "have you been formally diagnosed?". Because the implication of that question being asked is that I must just "self-identity" as having a condition,.which is a pretty grim suggestion

I'm not upset at the suggestion people might self identify as disabled
I am challenging the comments where people think you can tell by looking at someone whether or not they are disabled

Because that is such a harmful narrative.

The Power of Canes

I highly recommend this article if anyone hasn't read it:
https://www.thefp.com/p/hurts-so-good

I think some people who have disabilities on this thread are upset at the suggestion that anyone might self-identify as disabled, but it does seem to be a thing that is happening whether we like it or not, and obviously it harms people who are actually disabled. Gender dysphoria was a rare psychological condition but the numbers shot up and people blamed social contagion, and when numbers for EDS/POTS diagnoses (both official and self-diagnoses) similarly appear to be skyrocketing it is bound to make people wonder.

If you look at any Pride march there are a lot of canes. Some people have said it's damage from cross-sex hormones but I think it's something else.

I think it may come in part from the tendency in current woke/progressive culture to treat those who are more oppressed as more virtuous and people who those with privilege should listen to. There is also the fact that so many influencers list their various diagnoses on social media and their content will be popular with other people who think that they may have these conditions. But more generally I think it might be a bit of a cry for help and attention especially from young women.

Do you hear the sound of hooves and think wildebeest or zebra @Arran2024? Because that's what this is about.

Young people with walking aids? They must be trans or trans adjacent.🙄

Have you seen the news stories recently about the writer of The Salt Path?

No one has said that though. You aren't reading what people are saying.

It's about numbers, and patterns. When I went to the concert I wrote about earlier in the thread, filled with young women clearly well into the whole trans and id pol world, I didn't think anything much about the first girl I saw with a cane. It was notable only in that I don't see many 18 year old girls with canes. She did not appear to have any real difficulty with walking, but I am aware that balance issues in particular may find a cane helpful without any real visible difficulty, so I didn't think much of it.

When I saw four others at te same event, that was a differernt story, because that constitutes a pattern. It's not impossible, but statistically unlikely, that I might see five young women all with canes at a concert. All from the same niche style group - what would have been goth a generation ago - and none had any clear reason for needing the cane. Hmm. Odd.

And then over the past few months, I've seen a few other young people. A few girls, and what appeared to be a TIM, all with the same kind of style indicators.

Do I really conclude that there is sudden;y more young people with goth sensibilities needing canes? That seems a poor hypothesis.

Given that this is the same group of young people who seem to be trying on other identities they perceive as marginalised, a stronger hypothesis seems to be that they are doing the same thing with disability. Especially given the prevalence of what seems to be quite spurious tiktokers doing the same thing right now.

Quite a few people have pointed out that this is not about looking at individuals, but what seems to be a trend with notable patterns. It seems like you are deliberately ignoring addressing that element.

Meaning? It’s not like I’m the only one on the thread here. People can talk all they like.

"meaningless" and "relying" in the two edits I can't edit.

I'm addressing the earlier claim that 24% of people in the UK are "disabled" - where it comes from and what it means. I don't think that that figure is related in any way to any definition in the Equality Act and I haven't claimed it is.

If you listen to the More or Less episode that I linked to you will see that they discuss the claim that 1 in 4 people are disabled. I presume they are talking about the 24% statistic as it would be an amazing coincidence if they weren't.

The programme says that that figure comes from the Family Resources Survey produced by the ONS.

According to More or Less that survey uses two criteria to determine if you are disabled:(1) do you have a physical or mental health condition or illness that has lasted for, or is expected to last for, more than 12 months, and (2) "Do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry out day to day activities (i) yes, a lot (ii) yes, a little (iii) not at all". [My bold for emphasis]

That last bit in italics is a verbatim quote from the programme and I hope you would agree that it is perfectly reasonable to paraphrase (2)(i) and (ii) as "at least a little".

The point I'm trying to make - perhaps not very well - is that the 24% figure seems to be based on questions from the Family Resources Survey where having a long term condition that reduces your ability to carry out day to day activities even just "a little" is sufficient to count as being disabled, whereas under the EA your condition has to have a "substantial and long-term adverse effect on [your] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".

The point is that when people start talking about the number of people who are "disabled", you need to know what definition of "disability" is being used as the EA definition is much narrower and more restrictive than that used in the Family Resources survey. [Edit1: and in particular I find it very hard to believe that 24% of the population is disabled to the extent rquired by the Equality Act. The 24% definition is so broad as to be virtually meaning less]

I could consider myself to be disabled under the Family Resources Survey criteria, but I wouldn't have a disability under the EA definition.

Hope that's clearer.

[Edit2: I don't claim any familiarity with the Family Resources Survey. I'm reling on the More or Less programme I linked to]

@Manxexile You've added that 'at least a little' yourself. The Equality Act defines disability as a physical or mental health impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Substantial and long-term, not at least a little.

@TheLivelyViper - "... Also 16 million people in the UK (24% of the population are disabled - 26% are women and 22% men). Disabled people have always been pushed out and alienated and this sort of discourse just furthers that..."

But where does that 24% figure come from and what does it actually mean?

If it's the same figure as was discussed on BBC Radio 4's "More or Less" programme on 2nd April this year from the ONS' The family resources survey, then the definition of "disabled" is so broad as to cover such a wide range of conditions and such differing degrees of condition as to make the word "disabled" almost meaningless.

For example if you (1) have a physical or mental health condition that has lasted for, or is likely to last for, 12 months or more, and (2) it reduces your abilty to carry out day to day activities at least a little, then you are disabled.

Under those criteria I could identify myself as "disabled" but I don't think there is any way in which I could reasonably be said to meet what I would term a conventional or a usual more restricted meaning of the word disabled.

Anybody with a long term condition who takes just one day off work as a result of it is "disabled" under that definition and is included in the 24% of "disabled" people. No wonder the figure is so high.

Interestingly, if you look at the number of people claiming "disabilty related benefits", the programme says it's about 10% - 12% of the population, but the number is growing.

The discussion is from about 15 minutes in: More or Less - Is one in four people in the UK disabled? - BBC Sounds

I wonder if there are any long-term studies on social contagion, especially relating to very young women?

Are there any teachers on here who have worked 30 maybe 40 years in the profession - what might they have observed over those decades? If you're a parent you only have that small window of experience, but teachers who've been around teenagers for that long may have valuable observations to make.

I remember when punk happened; we had a few at school who threw themselves into it. I also remember when eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia nervosa were rife, then self-harming, especially cutting arms. Then later it was all about being gay and non-binary and trans and now we have what appears to be a fad for self-diagnosed chronic illness and neurodiversity.

Casting back to earlier times of girls accusing other women of witchcraft, being lauded for starving themselves to death, being admired for being consumptively beautiful, getting attention for manufacturing poltergeist activity?

Maybe it's just the fashions and the behaviours that change - but it's the same thing that lies beneath; different manifestations and reactions to how generally awful many young women find being a young woman is?

Are you disabled?

How do you know what disabled people think?

And I might have missed the memo but I'm not sure there is an AGM where all disabled people are what they are going to think.

I've noticed that too. Usually pretty patterned sticks & not obviously needing an aid.

I think some of it at least comes from breaking down stigma of disability. In the past someone would struggle on rather than be seen using an aid whereas now the stigma has gone & often people will get extra adjustments etc