OPEN LETTER TO OLD BATS ON METRO THIS A.M.
Three different people offered their seats to the woman with the four-footed cane, and she politely declined each. Mind your own damned business. Sincerely, your fellow-commuters.

Age of woman with four-footed cane: probably early 40's.
Age of people in seats designated "Priority seating for elderly and passengers with disabilities: various, from mid-20's to 60's.
Time those people arrived in those seats, relative to arrival on train of woman with four-footed cane: one to five stops sooner.
Age of old bats: late 60's, early 70's.
Snarky comments from old bats: various, including "If I walked with a cane, I'd crack them across the knees" and "One of these days, I'm going to embarass you by saying something to these young people who just let women and elderly people stand the whole way."
Position of old bats: seated.
Visibility of own knee injury that occasionally makes standing on metro quite painful: zero.
Implements carried by self to assist walking: zero.
Preference of woman with four-footed cane: standing. (But thank you.)

I mean, look. Of course it's courteous to give up one's seat to someone more in need of it. And of course we all hope those around us will be as courteous as possible at all times. But when courtesy extends to assisting people who don't need or want assistance, it goes by a much less pleasant name: patronizing. I think we can safely assume that a passenger who literally could not stand up for the duration of a trip on the metro would either (a) say so -- as a lady did to me a few years ago, when I had dozed off and didn't see her board the train; regrettably, she did this by kicking me in the ankle, but one can't have everything -- or (b) equip himself with a wheelchair.

It is never courteous to presume people are less -- less capable, less intelligent, whatever -- than oneself. It is still less courteous to presume that a person with obstacles in one arena must by extension face difficulties in other, unrelated, facets of life. In the instant case, Person X's offering the seat to the woman with the cane was appropriate. But when she said "No, thanks, I'm fine," was X to argue with her? Would it really have been more polite for X, who had no knowledge of or experience with whatever caused her to carry the canein the first place, to insist that the woman wasn't fine at all and had better take the seat, and her preference for standing be damned?

According to the old bats, maybe so. They didn't offer their own seats, of course, but that's because they were both elderly and women, and therefore entitled.

As a woman, and on behalf of able-bodied elderly people everywhere, I resent that. Quite a bit.

(In Paris, as I recall, there's a hierarchy of entitlement to the Priority For ________ seats. World War I veterans, if there are any left, get the big prize, but in their absence the seats go to -- and I'm working from memory, here, so don't quote me -- disabled veterans [especially amputees], other disabled individuals, blind people, other veterans, senior citizens meeting none of the above criteria, and pregnant women. In that order.)

Whoever reaches the door first should open it. If that person is loaded down with packages or luggage, someone should hold the door for him. The generic singular pronoun "he" is not oppressive. And so on.

(Guess how I feel about Affirmative Action.)