I understand the thing about not wanting to use language like "cripple" etc to define the character, and why that may be seen as offensive to some people who are paralyzed.
However.
You're talking about how some people are taking offense to seeing Charles out of the wheelchair, which is blowing my mind. First off, it's a contradiction -- if he's not defined by his paralysis (which appears to be a point you're trying to make, that the language of "cripple" and other words shouldn't define the person), then it shouldn't be a huge deal to have an AU where he can walk.
Second -- you do realize that in the comics right now, Charles is out of the wheelchair and can walk? So telling people to -warn- for that sort of thing is pretty ridiculous when it occurs in the actual Marvel story lines.
no subject
However.
You're talking about how some people are taking offense to seeing Charles out of the wheelchair, which is blowing my mind. First off, it's a contradiction -- if he's not defined by his paralysis (which appears to be a point you're trying to make, that the language of "cripple" and other words shouldn't define the person), then it shouldn't be a huge deal to have an AU where he can walk.
Second -- you do realize that in the comics right now, Charles is out of the wheelchair and can walk? So telling people to -warn- for that sort of thing is pretty ridiculous when it occurs in the actual Marvel story lines.