Atttended a very fine opening night for the very fine BHVU open last night, which resulted in me feeling particularly jaded as I watched R deliver her line and sing a couple of songs at school assembly this morning. All very sweet, but I find the level of technology awareness staggering at times.
When grandmother spoke to R last night, she said,
"Don't forget to speak loudly and clearly."
R replies,
"Oh, it's ok Oma, I'll be using the microphone."
A more peculiar comment came when I overheard someone behind me make reference to me in conversation. I was described as,
"The guy in the red shirt."
Was the speaker worried I would overhear and be offended if he had described me as 'the guy in the wheelchair'? Or did it just not occur to him that my chair is quite a defining feature? I was the only wheelchair user at the event, so it would have been easy to pick me out. It is true that I was the only person in a red shirt in the gallery at the time,so that description worked just as well in context.
I felt puzzled more than anything. I have no problem with being described as the guy an a wheelchair. As long as I'm not described as wheelchair bound. That's an expression that pees me off. I am not bound by my wheelchair, I am freed by it. Without it I am bound by my paralysis. On a gravel path, one wouldn't describe a walker as shoe-bound, nor would a sailor in the middle of an ocean be described as boat-bound.
It's not about being PC, or causing offence. It's about words that suggest tragedy, as if life is as good as over.
When grandmother spoke to R last night, she said,
"Don't forget to speak loudly and clearly."
R replies,
"Oh, it's ok Oma, I'll be using the microphone."
A more peculiar comment came when I overheard someone behind me make reference to me in conversation. I was described as,
"The guy in the red shirt."
Was the speaker worried I would overhear and be offended if he had described me as 'the guy in the wheelchair'? Or did it just not occur to him that my chair is quite a defining feature? I was the only wheelchair user at the event, so it would have been easy to pick me out. It is true that I was the only person in a red shirt in the gallery at the time,so that description worked just as well in context.
I felt puzzled more than anything. I have no problem with being described as the guy an a wheelchair. As long as I'm not described as wheelchair bound. That's an expression that pees me off. I am not bound by my wheelchair, I am freed by it. Without it I am bound by my paralysis. On a gravel path, one wouldn't describe a walker as shoe-bound, nor would a sailor in the middle of an ocean be described as boat-bound.
It's not about being PC, or causing offence. It's about words that suggest tragedy, as if life is as good as over.
On reflection you are somebody who is now comfortable with your being seen as a wheelchair user, mainly because of your confident personality and general take on the world. So 'red shirt' or 'guy in the wheelchair' both work for you. The problem is how somebody who doesn't know you knows that.
The difficulty in how to refer to people comes maybe from the wide variety of situations and personalities of people who are disabled. I would guess that there are people who are extremely self conscious of their wheelchair. That may depend on how they personally deal with their disability, whether it's a new situation for them or maybe they have no self-confidence.
I think that most times we avoid singling somebody out because of their disability in order to not cause offence or more likely upset because we don't know their personal situation.
Also we often hear that people do not want to be defined by their disability. So many times we may use 'normal' characteristics such as a red shirt to point someone out.
....this has nothing at all to do with the loss of my hair...
I'm not too bothered by being referred to as "the guy in the wheelchair". But people do have an anxiety around how to refer to minorities. Would you point out someone by referring to their skin colour? I suppose the language used in the question implies assumptions: by referring to you as the guy in the wheelchair, you're being defined by your chair. I think I'd rather be defined by my outlandish sense of style...