Britain’s taxpayer-funded tourism body has advised tour guides to abandon the phrase “able-bodied” in favour of “non-disabled”, in the latest example of bureaucratic attempts to regulate language in the workplace.
VisitBritain, the non-departmental public body responsible for promoting tourism, has issued guidance urging guides to adopt “inclusive” terminology when speaking about disability. The document warns against language that “perpetuates harmful stereotypes” and advises staff to avoid expressions such as “suffers from” or “wheelchair-bound”, which it claims “encourage pity”.
Among its recommendations, the quango declares that “able-bodied” should be replaced with “non-disabled”, prompting criticism from free speech advocates. Lord Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, dismissed the guidance as absurd, arguing that it exemplifies the worst excesses of bureaucratic activism.
“What’s next?” he said. “‘Non-blind’ instead of ‘20:20 vision’? ‘Non-deaf’ instead of ‘perfect hearing’? Will we have to describe Marilyn Monroe in future as ‘non-ginger’ instead of ‘blonde’?”
The guide also states that individuals with dwarfism should not be referred to as “dwarfs”, recommending instead the phrase “someone with restricted growth or short stature”. Lord Young questioned this, remarking: “I’ve been admonished many times for suggesting that was the PC term for dwarfs and told that’s a ‘Right-wing myth’. The correct term, apparently, is ‘little people’ – or, in the case of Disney’s remake of Snow White, ‘magical people’.”
“This quango has literally become the caricature that free speech champions like me invented to discredit humourless woke scolds,” he added.
The guide further instructs tour guides not to respond defensively if corrected for using the “wrong” language. “When thinking about language, it’s important to be open to education,” it states. “The appropriate terminology changes frequently. If a customer corrects your language, resist the temptation to get defensive, and instead listen to alternatives to use in future.”
It goes further, acknowledging that even positive language may be disadvantageous when promoting tourism. “An important caveat to this, however, is that disability-focused language can support your business from an SEO [search engine optimisation] perspective; it is likely that some potential customers may search for ‘wheelchair accessible lodges’ or ‘disabled-friendly hikes’, for example.”
VisitBritain is the latest in a series of public bodies issuing prescriptive language guidance.
Last week, it emerged that NHS staff have been instructed to avoid the term “obese” following new advice from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Other banned words include “homeless”, which must now be replaced by “people experiencing homelessness”, while “disadvantaged people” become “people who are underserved”.
In October 2024, civil servants in Northern Ireland were told to avoid generational descriptors such as “millennial”, “Generation X”, and “baby boomer”, on the grounds that they allegedly reinforce negative stereotypes and could be considered offensive.
Elsewhere, Sutton Council in south London has instructed staff not to ask for people’s “Christian name”, while Staffordshire Police has warned officers against using phrases such as “man up”, “OAP”, or “policeman” when dealing with the public.
In January, the head of a regional police force publicly discarded a diversity guide that had instructed officers to avoid the phrases “black sheep” and “blacklisted”, insisting that the public wanted crime solved, not “virtue signalling”.
Ahead of the Paris Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) issued its own speech guidelines, discouraging journalists from using terms such as “born male” or “biologically male” to describe transgender athletes. The IOC labelled these phrases “dehumanising” and urged reporters to adopt language consistent with its inclusive policies.
The move drew criticism from nine-time Wimbledon champion Martina Navratilova, who accused the IOC of waging a “Nineteen Eighty-Four-style war on women”. Cathy Devine, a former lecturer in sport and physical activity at the University of Cumbria, also condemned the guidelines as “breathtakingly sexist and complete propaganda”.
Despite the backlash, Yiannis Exarchos, chief executive of Olympic Broadcasting Services, insisted that his team in Paris would use the guidelines as “our Bible”. This framing implicitly suggests that those who diverge from its principles could be seen, metaphorically speaking, as heretics.
As these examples suggest – and as the use of religious tropes so neatly emphasises – speech codes risk creating a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from expressing themselves freely for fear of inadvertently violating opaque or ever-changing rules.
By imposing vague or excessively broad restrictions on language, institutions compel employees to second-guess their every word, lest they fall foul of an ill-defined standard of appropriateness. Such a climate not only erodes trust but actively suppresses the diversity of perspectives that these very institutions claim to champion.
