This is a minefield, not because we need to be vigilant, taking care to be up-to-date with words that are considered offensive, but because the very act of taking care can either come across as patronising or be positively patronising.

I've heard a comedian with cerebral palsy use the word spastic liberally in his act as a way of protesting how being politically correct can effectively protect the able bodied rather than the person they are concerned for. If the word is more offensive to someone without cerebral palsy then what is the point?

The word spastic is technical and in the UK what's now known as Scope was called the Spastic Society. The reason the word was dropped was because those with the condition were likened to someone considered stupid. It could well be argued that we use the word spastic and then challenge those who find it offensive to see if they actually see people with CP as less intelligent.

On the use of people-first language, some time ago it was considered correct to refer to someone with schizophrenia as a person with schizophrenia yet many with the condition prefer to be known as schizophrenics because rather than being seen as 'normal' but with schizophrenia they'd rather own their condition and for outsiders to see through it rather than see it as an optional extra which it isn't.

My take away from this is that, rather than being overly considerate and possibly glibly woke we might want to walk through the eggshells and celebrate the noise. It seems to me that some of this is more fashionable than considerate and can, in fact, hide prejudice that really needs to be exposed.