about this story in today's Metro?

[EyelinerQueen]

DP sent me this from the bus this morning. An excerpt from a story about the World Cup opening ceremony.

I know it's not exactly The Washington Post and I'm not at all one of the P.O. brigade but I am genuinely baffled at this.

It's not just me is it?

I do see what you mean... doesn't the man/woman have a name?

Tilly
I am not implying or stating outright in fact that just because someone uses a terminology themselves that it's ok to use.
And the post you refer to (which I am not going to rewrite) "I am allowed to decribe myself in any way I choose. You are not" (and there's more to this post) actually does accuse me.

I have already said, if someone refers to themselves in what is termed 'offensive' terms then I don't leap in and correct them because that is their choice to use those words.
Not mine.
It's not how I would describe them
It's not what I call them.

Nobody knows what the person in the Metro article called himself. They might have said "What made you decide to do this"
And they might have said "Oh, I really love The World Cup and I wanted to be involved. But as a paraplegic, I had to think of a way I could" .
I don't know. I'm just guessing. But yes, the papers write what they see fit.

And outside of work, I have family who have diabetes. My father calls himself a diabetic.

I refuse to be slated on a forum, even a public forum where I wouldn't recognise anyone if I met them in the street, over something I didn't write.

And I have never heard a patient say "I have a paraplegic condition"/ "I;m a person with paraplegia"
Maybe they describe their condition as how they feel? Not how some PC code dictates.

70 I'm not slating you for what you didn't write. I'm slating you for what you did write, and the dollop of disingenuousness, and strawmanning you served us as dessert.

You wrote this: 70 She responded to this:

I'm always a bit puzzled at how many people get bogged down in the Politically Correct jargon. I work with a mainly elderly but some younger patients with a variety of health conditions, and it is interesting how they describe themselves. They rarely say "I have diabetes" more usually "I'm a diabetic" Or they say "I'm a cripple with this arthritus" And I have never heard a patient say "I have a paraplegic condition"/ "I;m a person with paraplegia" Maybe they describe their condition as how they feel? Not how some PC code dictates.

We can see the implication well enough.

And then you wittered about how it would be insulting to correct the people in the clinic, when no-one had asked you to.

Sorry, I have a teenager having a meltdown here because the rules got changed.

I highlighted that, 70 to say, maybe that is the problem, and maybe that's why a 17 year old girl, who has been picked on, on here before, got irate. (She's not the one having a meltdown)!

I agree Whatdoiknow - that's all that was needed.

The fact that some people describe themselves as " a paraplegic" is not relevant. They can say what they like about themselves - someone else saying it would have a different effect.

Nobody seems interested in why the person was wearing a robotic suit.
Answer: because they are paraplegic.

Neither is anybody fulminating that the children weren't named. Are they just embodiments of their immaturity? Shucks!

And you're still doing it. No-one cares if your father calls himself a diabetic. The issue is the fact that you assume that if he calls himself that, everyone else is entitled to call people with diabetes 'diabetic', and then you extend that FAULTY conclusion to people with other conditions, that are far more stigmatised.

People don't generally ever treat people with diabetes as non-human. If you have paraplegia, you will encounter people treating you as non-human on a far more frequent basis. The issues are far, far different.

In my opinion, this is the big story about the event.

Also, please note, "The identity of the young volunteer was kept a secret until after the event".

Irrelavancy, Garlic. And I note the BBC used : A paraplegic man
It would have been possibly to ascribe gender or at least humanity!

possible
Sorry.

The BBC's headline is "Paraplegic in robotic suit kicks off World Cup".

I don't think it's at all irrelevant - the robotic suit is the story, and the amazing fact it enabled a person-with-paraplegia to kick a ball by thinking about it!

Just because the suit is the story, it doesn't mean the language used should be ignored. He is a person, reducing him to a disability is dehumanising, ergo, unacceptable.

Amazing science - and it gives me hope. wonderful to see, (heard about it on radio 4 beforehand so knew it was going to happen). Good that people are working on tings that really matter.

70 if you want to use that kind of terminology then be prepared to get reported.

Because I can, I have and I will.

My children are children first. Not their disabilities or health conditions.