New Brighton's 'Invalid' Toilets - Acceptable language?

[edwin_m]

Invalid comes from the Latin "validus" meaning strong, so its direct and principal meaning is simply "not strong", rather than anything else.

This is one of the many words where useage in the intervening 2000 years has made the original Latin origin somewhat irrelevant. Ask 100 people today the meaning of "valid" and at least 90 (if they know at all) will say useable, correct, right or something similar.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My daughter fosters two sisters who have 'learning difficulties' and are classified, including by the Council, as 'Special Needs'. When you have two girls with the physicality of 20 and 15 year olds and the mental abilities of 8 year olds, the desciption 'Special Needs' is absolutely correct and the best way possible of describing their lives

I agree with you. But unfortunately when a sensible terminology has become a term of abuse (which may not actually have happened in this case, as I was quoting a work of fiction as an example!) it's probably time to stop using it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

All of these terms were never designed to cause offence or disrespect. Unfortunately today, as we are so controlled and live in a world where the politically correct word mongers get on their high horse about so much of society, innocent words that we have used for generations suddenly become offensive.

Surely disabled is just as offensive as invalid (it doesn't mean the person is not valid, it means they are disabled).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. It's because people start using the terms to joke, make light of and otherwise disrespect and abuse those who are disabled. When the word "spastic" becomes a punchline in and of itself, it's time to retire the word.

If you can't understand that, then you really have no business commenting. I'm really getting sick to death of people who think their ignorance is more important than giving people basic human respect.

 

[jon0844]

Presumably if you're an "invalid" you're allowed to travel on an "invalid" ticket.

Waits to see that scenario appear in Disputes & Prosecutions...!

 

[tsr]

On that note, when I fly and go by train, I often hear assistance staff say "we've got three wheelchairs to get off", or something similar.

What they mean is people in wheelchairs - classic problem of seeing the problem not the person. I think if I were in a wheelchair I'd be a bit miffed if I heard that.

Just musing.

I have known people to take offence, but surprisingly rarely. It's very easy for railway shorthand to become a bit close to that. On the other hand sometimes it is just a "wheelchair" - some wheelchair users don't like using ramps or only need a wheelchair to avoid prolonged walking, so you end up just moving an empty wheelchair anyway. I would say this accounts for at least 25-30% of wheelchair use that I come across on trains.

The other term that is used on my patch is "assists", which is something of an invented noun to describe passengers requiring any assistance, be it (for example) assisting with a wheelchair they're using, guidance due to visual impairment, or just moving luggage for someone elderly or unwell. I hope this is not too offensive but, again, it's basically just an abbreviation and certainly not designed to be derogatory. Given it is not in widespread use elsewhere, hopefully it just sounds like it's there to make the train handover procedure more concise, which is indeed the point. Like "wheelchair" but maybe less obvious.

Of all my passengers, those using wheelchairs and having other requirements for a little more help on their journeys are often those who are most grateful, polite and respectful. In turn I certainly have no issue with helping them and see it as a fundamental part of the job description, and I trust most public transport colleagues on these forums agree. Any accompanying item is indeed to be dealt with as just that, not the person.

 

[OneOffDave]

Handicapped is very much a US term these days. In the UK, it tends to be "disabled person". "Special needs" is used much more in education as it stems from the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act which sets out the requirements for assessment and provision for school age children. Not all those covered by the act are severely affected enough to be covered by the DDA but need assistance in a school setting.

The best term would be wheelchair user but generally we'll go with being called wheelchairs if the intent behind it is genuine and helpful

 

[jon0844]

Staff will naturally abbreviate things in normal day to day work. It must happen in almost every profession.

If there's a need to deal with something like a case, wheelchair, bike, buggy or whatever then it's about what needs to be done and isn't really about the person. You could still reasonably expect that come the interaction with the person themselves it will be professional and respectful.

If not, that's the time to get upset.

 

[edwin_m]

The other one that tends to be used is "Persons (people?) of Reduced Mobility" or PRMs.

 

[yorkie]

Though I'd advise shying away from "DDA toilet". Whenever TMs announce that phrase it gives off the impression they mean "the toilet the DDA forces us to provide"

Agreed, especially as DDA is no longer relevant and hasn't been for about a decade!

Saying "accessible toilet" avoids all that and sounds so much better anyway.

 

[Starmill]

Though I'd advise shying away from "DDA toilet". Whenever TMs announce that phrase it gives off the impression they mean "the toilet the DDA forces us to provide"

I've heard some who simply call them 'larger toilets' which is true!

 

[MotCO]

I rather liked the suggestion of 'Universal Toilet', which I think sums it up rather well, after all it is for both men and women, regardless of any difficulties, and I can't see how it could offend anyone.

 

[Busaholic]

Words come and go, I'm sure in XX years time, someone will decide the word 'disabled' is offensive and others will follow suit. Look at how many other words have become unacceptable or are now considered to be a form of abuse - 'spastic' for example was considered to be perfectly ok to use (there was even a charity, The Spastics Society, which became Scope in the 1990s). You don't hear the word 'handicapped' used much nowadays either.

In the 1970s and 1980s the Mencap charity was a very campaigning organisation, led by someone whose name I cannot now recall, but he had been Director of Housing at Haringey Council, and he was first-rate at getting publicity for the issues he felt needed raising and, as a by-product, helping raise more money for the charity. Mencap was shorthand for mental handicap, a term that is no longer considered acceptable, but a change of name has perhaps not served the best interests of the people it helped as those issues have returned to the backburner.

 

[jon0844]

I rather liked the suggestion of 'Universal Toilet', which I think sums it up rather well, after all it is for both men and women, regardless of any difficulties, and I can't see how it could offend anyone.

This is generation snowflake. Anyone can be offended.

Accessible toilets do however have plenty of safe space...!

 

[Harbornite]

This is generation snowflake. Anyone can be offended.

Accessible toilets do however have plenty of safe space...!

Prepare your anus!

In all seriousness, I don't think much of the safe space concept and some people are definitely oversensitive, but the authorities should ensure that the correct terminology is used in order to avoid offending disabled people. We live in more tolerant times and it's good that terms like spastic and n*gger have been consigned to the scrapheap.

 

[Gutfright]

We live in more tolerant times and that's why certain words won't be tolerated!

 

[NSEFAN]

We live in more tolerant times and it's good that terms like spastic and n*gger have been consigned to the scrapheap.

It's not so much the word, but the sentiment behind it. How anyone in 2016 can dislike someone purely for having a disability or the wrong kind of skin colour is beyond me. :roll:

 

[Harbornite]

It's not so much the word, but the sentiment behind it. How anyone in 2016 can dislike someone purely for having a disability or the wrong kind of skin colour is beyond me. :roll:

Indeed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We live in more tolerant times and that's why certain words won't be tolerated!

That's a price worth paying, or would you rather have it so words like spastic, n*gger and tranny are acceptable?

 

[infobleep]

A good solution is to describe objects rather than people.

For example in this case you could call it a universal or accessible toilet, rather than a toilet for x people.

Then it's very difficult for someone to accuse you of making a poor, outdated or offensive choice of words.

Of course being disabled and not disabled isn't always clear cut.

I use accessibility loos and I wouldn't class myself as disabled. I need them for medical reasons.

I did however tick the box on the job application for my current job to say I was disabled for the purposes of my job. This was because if I got the job I'd wish to claim access to work funding from the government scheme, as I have a form of arthritis called ankylosing spondylitis. My arthritis isn't the reason I use accessibility loos though.

Personally I just tend to call them disabled loos even though I don't consider myself disabled as such myself.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Prepare your anus!

In all seriousness, I don't think much of the safe space concept and some people are definitely oversensitive, but the authorities should ensure that the correct terminology is used in order to avoid offending disabled people. We live in more tolerant times and it's good that terms like spastic and n*gger have been consigned to the scrapheap.

Unless your a rapper of course but that isn't necessarily a white person using the n term so it's not quite the same thing.

As for the old sign, may be it should get heritage status to reflect on times past and how we have moved on. If it's using invalid then may be it could be considered a museum piece!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[J-2739]

Unless your a rapper of course but that isn't necessarily a white person using the n term so it's not quite the same thing.

As for the old sign, may be it should get heritage status to reflect on times past and how we have moved on. If it's using invalid then may be it could be considered a museum piece!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The 'n' word is actually spelt in two ways: there's n*gga, which rappers normally use and some use it as a friendly greet. Then there's n*gger, which is the racial term and deemed offensive.

 

[infobleep]

The 'n' word is actually spelt in two ways: there's n*gga, which rappers normally use and some use it as a friendly greet. Then there's n*gger, which is the racial term and deemed offensive.

I didn't know that but then I don't consume much rap music as it's not my cup of tea.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[AlterEgo]

This is one of the many words where useage in the intervening 2000 years has made the original Latin origin somewhat irrelevant. Ask 100 people today the meaning of "valid" and at least 90 (if they know at all) will say useable, correct, right or something similar.

Agreed, but to say it "literally means" "not valid" isn't right.

Literally, it means "not strong", though as you point out it is not the first thing people think of when they read the word (though the intonation of the two words is different).

(with apologies for the pedantry!!)

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed, but to say it "literally means" "not valid" isn't right.

Literally, it means "not strong", though as you point out it is not the first thing people think of when they read the word (though the intonation of the two words is different).

(with apologies for the pedantry!!)

If you're going to be pedantic, then the English rules relating to prefixes apply and "invalid" literally does mean the opposite of "valid". This is so regardless of whether you then take the original Latin meaning for "valid" or the meaning it has acquired in modern English.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you're going to be pedantic, then the English rules relating to prefixes apply and "invalid" literally does mean the opposite of "valid". This is so regardless of whether you then take the original Latin meaning for "valid" or the meaning it has acquired in modern English.

Not quite.

Invalid - meaning "not valid" and invalid meaning "a disabled person" are two wholly different words which mean two things, and are pronounced differently.

Something which is invalid, like a ticket, is simply "not valid", where valid has been corrupted from the Latin meaning "strong" to its English version meaning "acceptable, okay, good, passable".

An invalid is a person who is "not strong", and it comes *directly* from the Latin invalidus: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/invalidus - it is the same word essentially, a direct descendant. This is not an English prefix at all, in this case.

Thus, the literal, most direct meaning of "invalid", is "not strong". The idea of it relating to ticket acceptance or being "not good, not acceptable" is a later English (and other euro languages) corruption.

That said, you could argue our debate is one over the meaning of the word "literal", another Latin word....and what sort of "basic" it refers to.

 

[edwin_m]

Not quite.

Invalid - meaning "not valid" and invalid meaning "a disabled person" are two wholly different words which mean two things, and are pronounced differently.

Something which is invalid, like a ticket, is simply "not valid", where valid has been corrupted from the Latin meaning "strong" to its English version meaning "acceptable, okay, good, passable".

An invalid is a person who is "not strong", and it comes *directly* from the Latin invalidus: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/invalidus - it is the same word essentially, a direct descendant. This is not an English prefix at all, in this case.

Thus, the literal, most direct meaning of "invalid", is "not strong". The idea of it relating to ticket acceptance or being "not good, not acceptable" is a later English (and other euro languages) corruption.

That said, you could argue our debate is one over the meaning of the word "literal", another Latin word....and what sort of "basic" it refers to.

Thanks, that does explain things better. Although if "invalid" is two different words which happen to have the same spelling, it may be that we were not talking about the same word.

 

[Tom B]

I noticed that some London buses (manufactured in 2005) have notices on the priority seats downstairs urging people to "RELINQUISH SEATS FOR THE ELDERLY OR HANDICAPPED".

I believe that "invalid carriage" remains a type of road vehicle according to the DVLC in reference to Reliant Robins etc.

As a child growing up in the early 90s, I was aware of both terms, but knew that they were other words for disabled.

 

[Starmill]

Thanks, that does explain things better. Although if "invalid" is two different words which happen to have the same spelling, it may be that we were not talking about the same word.

Homonyms for you!