Since when did the term “an invalid” become not PC

km991148

Poor confused Micks



Language changes, get over it.



Edit to add - I never knew it's now supposed to be offensive - I don't know if it is or if even anyone is actually saying that it is?

Certainly way less offensive than some of the words I grew up with!

banie01

maccored wrote: »

dont think anyone is trying to find offence - more so that you dont know where the word came from

I think you'll find I know perfectly well where the word comes from, and that you in your effort to use your Latin...

Have completely misinterpreted and indeed missed the point of my post.
But you carry on buddy.


Edited to add:

We have found at least one of those folk the OP was referring to as well
Always nice to see them in the wild.

maccored

banie01 wrote: »

I think you'll find I know perfectly well where the word comes from, and that you in your effort to use your Latin...

Have completely misinterpreted and indeed missed the point of my post.
Buy you carry on buddy.

I didnt invent the latin - thats where the word comes from.

whisky_galore

maccored wrote: »

thats exactly why you shouldnt use the word invalid - its meaning has always been the same - weak or feeble.

If someone is weak and feeble what should they be called instead?

MOH

seamus wrote: »

Haven't heard anyone complain about it, but at the same time it should be plain to anyone with two brain cells why "invalid" is not an appropriate word to describe someone. Just like you wouldn't use "moron" as a term for someone with an intellectual disability.

You'd probably just refer to them as someone without two brain cells?

banie01

whisky_galore wrote: »

If someone is weak and feeble what should they be called instead?

Pansy?
Walter?
Limp wristed?

Or like just invalided, Ill, unwell, sick or restricted as to usual activities.

maccored

whisky_galore wrote: »

If someone is weak and feeble what should they be called instead?

ill? not well? under the weather? theres tons of words you can use. as i say - its a matter of politeness. you can be an ignorant wanker and call people weak and feeble if its your thing.

maccored

maccored wrote: »

ill? not well? under the weather? theres tons of words you can use. as i say - its a matter of politeness. you can be an ignorant wanker and call people weak and feeble if its your thing.

And tell me this, how does this euphemistic language improve "ill" people's circumstance?

James Brown

whisky_galore wrote: »

If someone is weak and feeble what should they be called instead?

Maybe ask them.

banie01

maccored wrote: »

ill? not well? under the weather? theres tons of words you can use. as i say - its a matter of politeness. you can be an ignorant wanker and call people weak and feeble if its your thing.

You see, as an invalid.
I don't see the issue, it's a perfectly valid descriptor and indeed it is broad enough to allow an inference to be made regarding a person's illness and its possible limitation and limiting factor upon them, without a person having to disclose much further detail.

That you may find it unsettling, that's far more a you issue than it is an issue with the word.

crossman47

maccored wrote: »

its a way of calling sick people weak and feeble - yes. keep doing that if you want.

But if someone is ill, they are weak. What's wrong with saying it? One time, no one spoke of cancer directly. Thankfully we've moved on.

excludedbin

God love ye but some people really do have nothing better to be doing if not using a phrase is cause for them to start squealing in outrage. Is the collective age of people here somewhere in the region of twelve?

Stone Deaf 4evr

Wibbs wrote: »

It's fashion as much as anything. "Retard" is another one. A decade ago it was pretty harmless, even a mainstream Hollywood flic like Tropic Thunder gave birth to a very popular meme around it. Today, no way would that script get approved in that form, because the pearl clutching and the fear of same would be monumental. Here on this site it would have caused few eyebrows to flicker ten years ago, but again today you can almost hear the buttocks being clenched. Yet what were once other old medical terms for mental impairment like idiot, moron, imbecile etc don't get a second look(though "spa" would and has done for longer than "retard").

I wonder is it because "retard" is more associated with autism and that's why it was more singled out? That we have more awareness of that condition today and people on the spectrum have more of a voice online than off, so that was an influence?

I'd love to trace back the evolution of language, I'd assume that 'retard' is derived from the french for 'late' , but I'd love to know how it ended up in everyday use as a descriptor for someone of reduced mental capacity.

km991148

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

I'd love to trace back the evolution of language, I'd assume that 'retard' is derived from the french for 'late' , but I'd love to know how it ended up in everyday use as a descriptor for someone of reduced mental capacity.

Well working off that assumption I would guess if one is late, then they are slow - doesnt take much to go from there.

But is suspect its the same root word and not a direct load from French. Retardant for example isn't offensive.

But I am not a linguist.

Edit - but only a google away.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/retard

El_Duderino 09

Bowie wrote: »

I Seeth not the problem with evovling language. W'rds changeth. Some folk just seemeth to beest looking to beest outrag'd.

Yeah some folk are looking to be outraged by words changing meaning. It's always the way with the ones who complain about "PC gone mad".

PowerToWait

I know quite a few people with physical disabilities.

Like everyone else, it's very individual but practically none of these people would appreciate being referred to as 'invalids'. That's the simple rule of thumb. Don't offend people with your language (or do, if you want to be a dickhead).

People talking about how it's nonsense; how retard, spastic, handicap and the rest used to be accepted, well lots of things were accepted at one time. Those terms have evolved to be extremely pejorative. Everyone with half a sense of civility knows this.

It's not that hard to simply use the currently (*yes, current, language evolves, see above) least offensive / most widely accepted term. That way you will at least demonstrate respect and empathy.

If it's all too confusing for you, PC nonsense, go ahead. But you're an asshat in the eyes of many.

Stone Deaf 4evr

From a fascinating website https://www.etymonline.com/


invalid (n.)

"infirm or sickly person," 1709, originally of disabled military men, from invalid (adj.1). In Paris, Invalides is short for Hôtel des Invalides, home for old and disabled soldiers in the 7th arrondissement of Paris.

so looks like that word has french roots as well, and the pronunciation ties in with its usage here too.

also
retard (v.)
late 15c., "make slow or slower," from French retarder "restrain, hold (someone) back, keep (someone from doing something); come to a stop" (13c.) or directly from Latin retardare "make slow, delay, keep back, hinder" (see retardation). Related: Retarded; retarding.

The noun is recorded from 1788 in the sense "retardation, delay;" from 1970 in offensive meaning "retarded person," originally American English, with accent on first syllable. Other words used for "one who is mentally retarded" include retardate (1956), retardee (1971).

Stone Deaf 4evr

PowerToWait wrote: »

I know quite a few people with physical disabilities.



People talking about how it's nonsense; how retard, spastic, handicap and the rest used to be accepted, well lots of things were accepted at one time. Those terms have evolved to be extremely pejorative. Everyone with half a sense of civility knows this.

have to agree with you there, as per my previous post, a lot of those words are from a very dated way of thinking, when people with disabilities would have been essentially cast aside as worthless by society.

whisky_galore

maccored wrote: »

ill? not well? under the weather? theres tons of words you can use. as i say - its a matter of politeness. you can be an ignorant wanker and call people weak and feeble if its your thing.

Carry on being offended for other people.

banie01

PowerToWait wrote: »

I know quite a few people with physical disabilities.

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

have to agree with you there, as per my previous post, a lot of those words are from a very dated way of thinking, when people with disabilities would have been essentially cast aside as worthless by society.

This is a perception issue, there is a huge swathe of people who are physically limited but are not visibly disabled.
Hidden disability or illness that I have recently seen a drive for recognition for via coloured lanyards and other things.

How can we consider "invalid" as offensive?
Yet push for those who have hidden disability or limitation to advertise their condition, to allow people unafflicted by such issues to recognise and make allowance.

My invalidity is hidden, it's not apparent unless I choose to make someone aware of it. They are however quite limiting despite my relatively healthy appearance.
As such "invalid" is quite a useful shorthand that saves a lot of questions and answers regarding my illnesses and their impact on my life.

It's a kneejerk response IMO, but luckily in a relatively free society we don't all have to adhere to singular or forced opinion.

babaracus

It's known as the euphemism treadmill.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill

Within 10 years the current terms person of colour, disabled and person with a disability will also be unacceptable. Terms like idiot and imbecile were in favour at one time and actually introduced to replace terms that had been deemed offensive.

Traveller is another one which will go, just as it replaced itinerant.

It's nonsense.

FunLover18

It's not a forced opinion, the thread was started someone who was surprised it was considered offensive, not by someone who wants to ban the term. Some people find it offensive, some don't. I can understand why someone would balk at being called (an) invalid, it's the opposite of valid after all. It's a simple matter of being careful who use it around but if you don't want to consider other people's feelings that's also a valid option (pun intended).

3d4life

adam88 wrote: »

.... I was surprised the learn the term “an invalid” was considered offensive. ....

I'd be with you and wouldn't see it that way

Various western European languages have a similar word

e.g. Spanish "minusválido" : disabled / handicapped / invalid

utyh2ikcq9z76b

maccored wrote: »

its a way of calling sick people weak and feeble - yes. keep doing that if you want.

sick1
/sɪk/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
affected by physical or mental illness.

The word sick isn't to flattering either, what if some people get offended by that.

Manach

Slightly OT, I'd recommend the book "Words on the Move" by John McWhorter which explains the migration of meanings of such words. For instance "Cripple" used to be a neutral term until it became associated with disparagement.

hi5

Time to drag George in..

maccored

whisky_galore wrote: »

Carry on being offended for other people.

im not the one being offended.

its those who claim that to not use the term is being PC who are getting offended

Mules

Hunky Monster wrote: »

The rule of thumb for evolving language is.

Coloured person - VERY VERY BAD.
Person OF colour - acceptable.

How about person of invalid. Does that work?

I don't get the coloured= bad and person of colour =good either. I wonder who thinks up all the new terms?

There's a new term I've come accross recently for people with special needs. Some people say special abilities instead. I suppose it sounds more positive.

OscarMIlde

Seamai wrote: »

I was reading an article recently about the difficulties members of the deaf community are having when trying to communicate with someone who is wearing a mask as they make it impossible to lip read. Interestingly the person who wrote the article said that they did not use the word "disabled" when referring to themselves but preferred "handicapped" as they learned to get around most of the issues caused by their deafness and didn't feel that it stop them from doing things which made a lot of sense to me. Disabled to me says unable where as handicapped says able but has a disadvantage.

Yes, I've never understood why handicapped became a non-PC term, it's not derogatory in any way. I actually was given out to by someone once as a teenager for referring to my own brother as handicapped. She said it was offensive, and it was putting him down. As if being non-verbal autistic man wasn't an incredible handicap in life.

There's a certain type of person that seems to seek to avoid discussing difficult realities by altering how reality is labelled. I have a suspicion governments promote these ideas as positive thoughts and fluff is a lot less expensive than service provision and adequate carer support.

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

Invalidity pension is still going strong.

In the UK it is or was "Incapacity Benefit"