Well put. That argument does not treat her as a pawn. It is a shame that you would not have posted it without me pointing out your political shenanigans, and if you had’t read it in the last ten minutes because I made you think. See. Hooter has his plus points. Sadly though it is merely proof that your original post was using her to make a political point. Would you say to her face that she is disabled? Would you call an otherwise able bodied person (in which I would include Ellie) that they were disabled because they had their legs straightened when they were a kid? I don’t consider her disabled, other than for Olympic categories, and I don’t know how anyone watching her dance could consider her to be. I don’t see why she shouldn’t be on the show. Anyone who says she shouldn’t is a w****r. I like her a lot more than most of the shallow celebs that are on it, and she is a damned site better dancer than many. I have more problem with the idea that one contestant on the show has been set up for sympathy scoring because her sister died. She’s a decent dancer, why add the mawkish element? Now that is both woke and cynical, using death to tug the heart strings and increase the ratings. Strictly isn’t the only show to use death and tragedy though. So I’m pretty resigned to it happening.
Missing the point by a country mile. As you do. Often. Anything to deflect from accepting you were wrong. She talks about her disability and how she has had to make adjustments to help her participate more fully in society. Part of that challenge is other people's judgements of how disabled she is. It's YOU who claims I think she's 'seriously disabled'. I would never be so patronising or insensitive to tell someone how disabled they are, yet you seem obsessed by that. Still awaiting your apology...
She doesn't refer to herself as disabled. Perhaps you should read the article. I do not refer to her as disabled. You are telling me she is disabled, you have now trippled down on it and are insisting she is disabled, quoting an article in which she does not say she is disabled, and has described how she has coped with what life dealt her. Many people cope in similar ways to life's challenges, but they are not labelled disabled. The irony that you are telling me I am obsessed with her disability is sweet. Would you say to her face that she is disabled? If you wouldn't, perhaps you should stop digging here.
Nope. You know I won't do that. Besides, you may one day stop me posting, but you will only continue making your self-unaware comments that reveal your inner thinking. If you don't want to have what you said repeated to you, don't say those things.
Why did you like my post then? You’re all over the place. There is nothing you can point to as incorrect. Even @iamofwfc has deserted you.
I liked your post for the reason I said. You made a reasonable and insightful argument, and didn't have to make it political in doing so. I still disagreed wiyh much of it. The people criticising her inclusion will not just be from the right wing. Racism and bigotry is just as visible on the left, if not more so. So your argument was just a s**t piece dig at only an element of those making the posts, cast wide enough to include others, myself included, who have no problem with the show, or anyone's involvement in it. You just wanted to get a dig in. And you decided that part of the issue was that a person, who I am stunned to hear people describe as disabled, was being prejudiced because she was disabled. She's a bit short. That is it. She's a woman. A very talented one, who deserves to be included in s show like strictly. End of story. Getting bogged down in identitarianism, the root of bigotry, is unnecessary, but unfortunately so common place on both sides as to be the norm. Sorry if you, a "left wing" activist, can't see it that way. It's like saying that women Rugby players or footballers are disabled, because they play in the women's category of their sport.
l love you like a brother Lloyd. But surely you know by now that I don't give a damn what people think about me. But seriously. Would you call her disabled to her face? I just don't believe people should talk about her being disabled without knowing they could do that. Literally, she is short, and that is it. She would probably have good grounds for describing us all as disabled if we got in a swimming pool. I know I would require a motor boat to keep up with her.
Well, you did reply to me. And you did ask me why I liked your post. Again. If you don't want people to react to your words, don't say them.
She’s not “literally” short “and that is it”. She wouldn’t be permitted to compete in the Paralympics if she was. She has a condition, called achondroplasia. https://www.swansea.ac.uk/graduatio...wardsarchive/honoraryawars2018/elliesimmonds/ If you are claiming that this is not a disability, then I guess that’s your prerogative but it seems to be widely accepted that it is. If the underlying point is that she should not be defined by this but should be treated the same way as anyone else, then I fully agree and I imagine other posters who have contributed to this thread would do so too.
What is this ridiculous question would you call her disabled to her face? Why would anyone need to do that? That’s for her, as a person who talks publicly about her disabilities and how a disabling society disadvantages her, to do. Your point seems to be that, while you agree that those calling her inclusion in the contest wrong are both wrong and bigoted, that can only be said if we also call people who accept her disabilities and accept her inclusion, bigots too. For no good reason. Mad.Ness. At this point, you are simply trolling. Maybe you don’t like such an obvious showing up of the bigotries of the ‘anti-woke’ mob.
I am saying that I don't perceive her to be disabled. She appears, to me, to have overcome her disabilities to the point where she describes herself as independent, which I do not feel she would need to explain to anyone. The idea that she is disabled syems from her having achondroplasia, not her actual physical condition. Serious question. If she wasn't short, what is it you believe her disabilities to be?
If she chooses. But this thread chose to do it for her. See if you can find any reference, made by Ellie and not those talking about her, where she describes herself as disabled. I am not sure there are any out there. Good luck. Because, according to your post, if she doesn't choose to describe herself as disabled, or describes herself as having overcome disabilities, then why should you disagree with her?.
She talks about disabled sport often, giving advice to younger disabled athletes and speaking of her joy at being a ‘role model’. If she isn’t disabled herself, I suppose you think it was presumptuous of her to consider herself a role model to disabled people? But you are talking carp and trolling. Grow up. There is still time.
I think, amongst her many other talents she is also very eloquent. As she herself says: "She said: “We’re athletes, we train as hard as the Olympians, we are dedicated, we enjoy it all. If you’ve got a disabilty you’re normal, it’s just something that’s different.’ “I think people shouldn’t think ‘I’m not normal, I’ve got a disability. Overcome that, go out there and enjoy your life and achieve something.’" She freely admits to being disabled but she doesn't want pity or to be hidden away. She just wants an opportunity to achieve something and enjoy life. The fact that people don't want her to compete in a TV show because it makes them feel uncomfortable is disgusting. https://www.channel4.com/news/ellie-simmonds-paralympics-golden-girl
Her achondroplasia is surely (a large) part of what defines her as a human being. If she chooses to define herself as “just a bit short”, to use your terms, then that is how she conceives of herself and how we should view her. But, as Sydney suggests, I’m not convinced that is how she sees herself. In answer to your last point: nothing.
Another win for me I think. She is an inspiration. If she hadn't gotten over her disabilities, why would she be giving people advice. She has overcome her disabilities. She is only disabled now because people can't get over it. Her key message is "think of yourself as normal." We could show her the same courtesy. She doesn't talk about her disabilities, other than to say she over came them. I take it you couldn't find her saying she is disabled.
Old Henry also fails to realise that this whole thing wasn’t a talking point until right-wing columnist Alison Poison wrote a savage, bitter and very unkind piece in her dreadful newspaper. HH is literally dancing to the tune that’s been played for him and people like him to dance to.
Her achondroplagia will be a disadvantage to her for many reasons. But it does not define her in any way as a human being, even if it is something that other people find it very difficult to get past, hence this part of the thread. I f you ask me, her determination and ability do a far better job of that. Wouldn't it be horrible if people immediately came to inappropriate conclusions about her, just because "she is a dwarf"? Perhaps it is not what you intended, but if you start with her having achondroplagia, and make assumptions from there, you are likely to make some pretty rum assumptions about a multi gold winning Olympian. So I don't think assumptions is a good place to start. So, please, ask yourself the question I posed you. Besides being a bit short, what are the disabilities you perceive in her? What are the disabilities she describes herself as not having overcome? If you can't think of any, you might consider thinking twice before calling her disabled. She thinks of herself as normal, she has said. I can find no comment from her where she describes herself as disabled. t That is good enough for me. Seriously. I was gob smacked when I realised this thread was referring to her as disabled.
I did answer the question and I didn’t actually say it was my view that she was disabled. However, her condition is medically (or perhaps socially) considered currently to amount to a disability at least for the purposes of participation in the Paralympics. These classifications are not always appropriate, they are culturally constructed, and they change over time so it is perfectly acceptable to question them, I agree. It appears that many people with this condition do question the application of that label to them; it isn’t wholly clear to me whether she does or not. If you are “gobsmacked”, then you should be gobsmacked with that classification, surely, rather than those who have applied it?
How so? She's a **** for posting that. No bones about it. I have covered that, but it not being convenient to you, you have decided to simply talk rubbish and lie about me. You are a forum leftie though, so insults and lies are to be expected. How is pointing out that you are a bunch of Gammons for the language you use about a healthy young woman, whilst also agreeing that the people decrying 'inclusion' in Strictly are reprehensible, proof that I am the one dancing to right wing tune? It is you guys dancing to the tune of casual bigotry when you discuss Ellie as a disabled person who deserves to be given a hand up that she doesn't ask for. She is a healthy young woman who is reaping the fruits of hard work and talent. Who's tune am I dancing to, exactly, when that is my consistent view on this thread? And whose tune is it you are dancing to?
Thank you. Case closed. Any assumptions you or anyone else makes after concluding that are your own problem. Why should I be gobsmacked by Olympic classifications? They are there to provide people with competition at comparable levels of ability to that which they are capable of, having invested in physical training that would bring them to the top of that category. Much like womens sport seperating itself out from mens. Technically it is the opposite of what strictly have done, which is put her in with everyone else. I don't get your reference to this in terms of why it would upset me. It is done with good intention, and I support it, but in no way does it represent a categorisation anywhere other than in sport. "You wanted to compete, well now everyones gonna call yer an S3b for the rest of your life." Sorry, but I find that argument silly. If you played for the Fullerian's B's, does that make you a B for the rest of your life?
I agree with that. I was merely emphasising the Paralympics aspect because I don’t know enough about classifications for any other purposes to comment on those. I wasn’t trying to suggest that that classification should be applied across the board (it clearly shouldn’t). Fwiw, no I wouldn’t consider her to be disabled. However what I or you think isn’t really the point: it’s how she identifies herself that matters. And I’m still not wholly clear on that.
How trite. What did I say that suggested that? Being disabled and having an elite sporting disability are two very different things. Are you saying she is disabled then?
Another decent reply, but again, she is not referring to herself as disabled, other than in the context of competetive sport. What is her disability with regard to Strictly? Disadvantages, yes. But no disability.
No, which is why I deleted the post. It was an initial reaction to your Fullerians B point, but as you will see, I then reflected further.
@iamofwfc couldn’t resist showing himself up by liking #56, an obnoxious post where Hooter claims Simmonds has now ‘gotten over’ her disabilities as if a disabled identity is a demerit to be transcended. Very unpleasant indeed. But then we know how right wingers and nationalists think about disability. Pearson’s article lays it out.
Great idea – let's start right back at the beginning by recognising what a dreadful hit job the right-wing columnist and awful opinion honker Alison Pearson did on the subject in the Telegraph.
