Is deafness a disability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
for those who are deafened or acquire deafness it IS a disability, and has nothing to do with 'feeling', you just are disabled by it. Disability is defined in those terms as 'suffering sensory deprivation/loss after having hearing.' To write it off via culture is meaningless. Also coping with loss has nothing to do with zeroing it as a disability. Once you entertain THAT idea, then culture loses meaning too. Born deaf or those who from pre-school years had NO useful hearing cannot enter the debate. Ergo, they don't miss what they never had so it is a norm for THEM, for the rest it isn't, thus, a disablement.

It can be argued the considerable need for specialist education, interpreters, and disability welfare payments also recognise, even if 'Deaf' do not, they are disabled. They are relying on others for communication help. Empowerment is only true as is independent if you are NOT reliant on anyone else. I think basically 'Deaf' reject disability because of pride mostly. I don't think it really valid in practical terms, and certainly see no negativity in a disability label, without it few deaf in the western world would get any help.

Pride is a political hype that got misused, by both sides of the protest, its like drug, if can help pain but it can also create defiant behaviour...

Pride has been a double blade weapon, little did Deaf people know it was also going to go against themselves, by a political misdirection to overlook how organisations disables (d/Deaf) people...

So, you saying a disablement is distinct from disability?

Disability IS about how specialist education, interpreters, and welfare are imposed with a condition, which has an effect of control...this control is thus disablement. You better look at the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. Fundamental Principles of Disability, London, 1976 as quoted in What is a Disability? outlined this distinction between disability and impairment, and going by your use of 'disablement' to describe those born deaf...is fundamentally erroneous. as below have put the demarcation set in correct position angle of what is disabilty..

Definitions of disability reflect society’s view of disability and of people with impairments. Recently, definitions have been developed by disabled people to explain the disabling effects of society and the way it is organised on the lives of people with impairments. Consideration of these definitions led to the development of models of disability

In your bolded part is indeed debatable as well, it is wrong to say those are Culturally Deaf have no say in what is Disability! That is a political denial.
 
:pissed:

WHAT?
I DO NOT agree with you, metaphorically it is NOT a phemonena if thats what you're thinking.

I DO KNOW WHAT IS a metaphor is, and what is Metaphorically or even metaphorically-speaking is. DONT YOUR FUCKING DARE SAY I DONT KNOW the meaning of it

A metaphor is used to describe a subject by stating a similarity but using a comparison, at some point, to which is the same as another otherwise unrelated object. OBject might be something you can 'see' or some kind of consequence of when an object reacts, or say, when the wild water runs down the river fast it wears out the rock to have a smooth surface...this in some way, describes the pressure, the rush, the busy-ness, or the effort makes the rock (smooth and refined), the rock could be anything as you which... people do this often to make a point, by using a comparison that is more easier to relate to. Concepts could be too elusive to grasp, so a metaphori may be used to convey a description of a 'new concept'.



DUH


see right here you are made a mistake,
for this not quite what metaphor only is, or, not the only meaning of what "metaphor" could be.
A metaphor could also be a symbol, and this is how I used it in my paragraph,
alright?

2.
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

Metaphor | Define Metaphor at Dictionary.com

and yes, you did agree with me, in your bold- ed sentence is the part where
you basically repeat what I said preciously in my post:

So, in other words, disability is simply a lack of a sense or body part.
UN-ability to live with disability - is an entirely different matter....

Fuzzy

Originally Posted by Grummer View Post
that's an easy one

disability is a phemonena, and indeed it not only limits the ranges of occupation, lifestyle choices, limit a range of socialisation (due to stigmatisation), emotional what? OF course it affects people!!

its' basically what I am saying - that being disabled is not being able to use all your senses or your body parts or your full motion,
but is not the same as being unable:
Dis-ability means precisely a lack of yeas-impairment of something, in our case- a lack or impairment of hearing sense.
It can also mean a lack of any part of body, lack of body movement,
etc etc, the list can go on.

Oh - okay - I should add I meant only a BOLD part of your quote wee agree on, sorry!
I hope I cleared all that up now.

Fuzzy
 
NO NO NO NO
you're all wrong AGAIN

Disability has NOTHING to do with a lack of body function or mental impairment, NOTHING AT ALL with it...
It is IMPAIRMENT, NOT Disability

and Disability is not being able to Make Own choices, being unable to decide how to accomodate oneself's impairment to fit in the abled-bodied world...
Abled-bodied people EXCLUDES people with impairment in many important social activity, and in many cases, they (abled) make decisions on policy with little or NO consideration on how it affects impaired people _ THAT's IS DISABILITY, the very act of making impaired people UN-able. That is, to be unable to have any power or rights to include a proper opinion of how things should operate or rules on what to benefit impaired people, or rights to get their voices heard (viewpoint seen clearly to be noticed) on a matter that concerns impaired people. .

that being disabled is not being able to use all your senses or your body parts or your full motion,

but is not the same as being unable to add in new executive application or new voice for a new initative to better the lives of impaired people, rather abled people makes decision so THEY (abled) get more work (or cut for more profit), you just cant see it, can you?
 
for those who are deafened or acquire deafness it IS a disability, and has nothing to do with 'feeling', you just are disabled by it. Disability is defined in those terms as 'suffering sensory deprivation/loss after having hearing.' To write it off via culture is meaningless. Also coping with loss has nothing to do with zeroing it as a disability. Once you entertain THAT idea, then culture loses meaning too. Born deaf or those who from pre-school years had NO useful hearing cannot enter the debate. Ergo, they don't miss what they never had so it is a norm for THEM, for the rest it isn't, thus, a disablement.

It can be argued the considerable need for specialist education, interpreters, and disability welfare payments also recognise, even if 'Deaf' do not, they are disabled. They are relying on others for communication help. Empowerment is only true as is independent if you are NOT reliant on anyone else. I think basically 'Deaf' reject disability because of pride mostly. I don't think it really valid in practical terms, and certainly see no negativity in a disability label, without it few deaf in the western world would get any help.

If I was born HoH and remained so, am I disabled in your eyes? I never lost anything. What if I wore hearing aids for a long time and then stopped? Or are we only referring to natural hearing. It seems like you are saying no one is disabled by their hearing if they were born with a certain level, no matter what that level is... but having it go down would disable them. Am I understanding that right? :hmm: I can see that. Though I don't feel it lessens the culture any.

I agree there's an element of pride to it. People think there is something wrong with having a disability/impairment (a term I agree a little more with)/handicap and don't like thinking of themselves as having one. But I am sure there are people who have no problem with it, may consider themselves to have another disability/impairment/handicap and not consider their hearing to be one of them.

If I speak English but need help communicating in Spanish in a Spanish country (this skewed analogy has probably already been made), does the relying on others for communication disable me?

Eh. I simply don't think of myself as disabled. I'm okay with being legally stated as having a disability (or impairment, or perhaps atypical hearing), though it's just not how I think. ~shrug~
 
If I was born HoH and remained so, am I disabled in your eyes? I never lost anything. What if I wore hearing aids for a long time and then stopped? Or are we only referring to natural hearing. It seems like you are saying no one is disabled by their hearing if they were born with a certain level, no matter what that level is... but having it go down would disable them. Am I understanding that right? :hmm: I can see that. Though I don't feel it lessens the culture any.

I agree there's an element of pride to it. People think there is something wrong with having a disability/impairment (a term I agree a little more with)/handicap and don't like thinking of themselves as having one. But I am sure there are people who have no problem with it, may consider themselves to have another disability/impairment/handicap and not consider their hearing to be one of them.

If I speak English but need help communicating in Spanish in a Spanish country (this skewed analogy has probably already been made), does the relying on others for communication disable me?

Eh. I simply don't think of myself as disabled. I'm okay with being legally stated as having a disability (or impairment, or perhaps atypical hearing), though it's just not how I think. ~shrug~

Hmmm,...
not thinking you have a disability just because you seem to think you have a minor impairment...that's really strange, so intriguing that it's almost like as if youre 'about the same' as a person who'd lost their foot or toes at birth and had nothing enough to be an impact in their lives... thats' really interesting..about the ways people gauge how far or how much to lose to be considered a 'loss' to be an enough of an impairment to draw in 'disability' factor in their lives...just really interesting...
 
I think it comes under 'useful' hearing you have. Certainly if you struggle to hear then you are disabled by your loss. I am concerned mainly with those who acquire a loss after formative hearing. The issues/trauma of that can disable you for life without question. I do not feel comfortable 'Deaf' (To use their terminology!), see not only disability as negative, but other deaf who feel they are disabled by it, yet c,aim all the support/empowerment/help (There are loads of names they can use), the label gives them.

If people are saying I AM NOT DISABLED ! then will they refuse to take any support that is removed because of that ? Simply NOT calling it support doesn't change anything, neither does communication issues mean deaf will not NEED that support, of course they will, from birth, to education and into adulthood as well. Just because (And I think this tends to be an American trait), you call it something else doesn't change what is very obvious to see. You CAN have an culture and still have an disability. Deaf rejecting 'lablels' yet using their own merely shift the goalposts, it doesn't change the game much as they would suggest it does.

IN retrospect the attitude is HIGHLY negative of disability in practice, what other sector could get away with that assault on disabled ? since if you attack the title you attack the people too.
 
But there is a lot of stigma attached to disabilities so people don't like to consider themselves as having one a lot of times... it can make you feel like less of a human being, perhaps because that is how you view disabilities.
You took the word right out of my mouth! As I was reading through the comments on this thread I was thinking that some people seem to be attaching a stigma to the words disabled and disability. Having those words apply to you does not disvalue you as a person in any way.

I think this is an example of words having power. Yes there is a definition for the words disabled and disability, but you do not have to let those definitions define YOU. Disablity and disabled are not dirty words ;)

This is how I feel about about it. Deafness IS a disability. Yes it can be limiting in various ways in your life. But the simple fact of accepting the realities of those limitations does mean the person has accepted the stigmata that some people to feel is associated with the words disabled and disability.

I was not born deaf. I started losing my hearing as a young adult, so I never learned ASL, but really who am I going to use that with anyway? My husband, whom I left, flat out refused to learn it with me, and it's not like I can expect everyone (extended family and coworkers) already in my life to go and learn it. I'm the one with the problem. I'm the one that has do something about how I'm going to communicate. I'm the one that has to accept the realities of my disability. I never took lipreading classes either, but over the years my brain trained itself how to do it. I'm not proficient at it, it helps if I have my hearing aid on so I can combine sound cues and lip reading, but I can do it. It's a pain in the ass for anyone who is trying to talk to me to have to be looking right at me, but it doesn't stop people from doing it.

They don't think less of me because they can only talk to me face to face. They don't think less of me if I don't realize it's raining outside because I can't hear the raindrops on the roof. But more importantly, I don't think less of me because I can't hear the rain drops. Being able to hear the raindrops is not what gives my life value or meaning, it just means I can't hear the raindrops.
 
NO NO NO NO
you're all wrong AGAIN

Disability has NOTHING to do with a lack of body function or mental impairment, NOTHING AT ALL with it...
It is IMPAIRMENT, NOT Disability

and Disability is not being able to Make Own choices, being unable to decide how to accomodate oneself's impairment to fit in the abled-bodied world...
Abled-bodied people EXCLUDES people with impairment in many important social activity, and in many cases, they (abled) make decisions on policy with little or NO consideration on how it affects impaired people _ THAT's IS DISABILITY, the very act of making impaired people UN-able. That is, to be unable to have any power or rights to include a proper opinion of how things should operate or rules on what to benefit impaired people, or rights to get their voices heard (viewpoint seen clearly to be noticed) on a matter that concerns impaired people. .

that being disabled is not being able to use all your senses or your body parts or your full motion,

but is not the same as being unable to add in new executive application or new voice for a new initative to better the lives of impaired people, rather abled people makes decision so THEY (abled) get more work (or cut for more profit), you just cant see it, can you?

I got my definition of "disability" straight from the dictionary. How can that be wrong? I looked in both a medical dictionary as well as general dictionary. I think you might have a slight misconception as to the real definition of the word.
 
I got my definition of "disability" straight from the dictionary. How can that be wrong? I looked in both a medical dictionary as well as general dictionary. I think you might have a slight misconception as to the real definition of the word.

no, disabled is WRONG , even in the dictionary,

disability has Nothing to do with the body, it has everything to do with oppression, as thus dis=abled from function as a 100% citizen in society, as in 'held back'...
 
it seem they added it in the dictionary as per 'convention' or 'ordinary uneducated language use'
ask this to anyone who is a lecturer, Doctor, or Professor in Disability Studies in Universities _ NOT high school !!....bet you they will tell you im right I guranteee it
 
no, disabled is WRONG , even in the dictionary,

disability has Nothing to do with the body, it has everything to do with oppression, as thus dis=abled from function as a 100% citizen in society, as in 'held back'...

Well - quite frankly, I am disabled due to my mobility issues. My daughter's friends are disabled due to their medical issues and their dependency on their motorized wheelchairs and all the breathing equipment they have, not to mention the G-Tube they rely on for the food. My daughter was listed as being disabled due to her learning issues. My MIL is disabled due to her vision problems and also to having her knee-replacements. My mother is disabled due to her terminal illness and dementia. Shall I go on?
 
NO NO NO NO
you're all wrong AGAIN

Disability has NOTHING to do with a lack of body function or mental impairment, NOTHING AT ALL with it...
It is IMPAIRMENT, NOT Disability

and Disability is not being able to Make Own choices, being unable to decide how to accomodate oneself's impairment to fit in the abled-bodied world...
Abled-bodied people EXCLUDES people with impairment in many important social activity, and in many cases, they (abled) make decisions on policy with little or NO consideration on how it affects impaired people _ THAT's IS DISABILITY, the very act of making impaired people UN-able. That is, to be unable to have any power or rights to include a proper opinion of how things should operate or rules on what to benefit impaired people, or rights to get their voices heard (viewpoint seen clearly to be noticed) on a matter that concerns impaired people. .

that being disabled is not being able to use all your senses or your body parts or your full motion,

but is not the same as being unable to add in new executive application or new voice for a new initative to better the lives of impaired people, rather abled people makes decision so THEY (abled) get more work (or cut for more profit), you just cant see it, can you?

:roll:

Disability has NOTHING to do with a lack of body function or mental impairment, NOTHING AT ALL with it...
It is IMPAIRMENT, NOT Disability


I asked you how do you explain then:

"disability pension"???

and Disability is not being able to Make Own choices, being unable to decide how to accomodate oneself's impairment to fit in the abled-bodied world...
Abled-bodied people EXCLUDES people with impairment in many important social activity, and in many cases, they (abled) make decisions on policy with little or NO consideration on how it affects impaired people _ THAT's IS DISABILITY, the very act of making impaired people UN-able.


And here is an excellent example of using the word disability metaphorically, duh.

abled people makes decision so THEY (abled) get more work (or cut for more profit), you just cant see it, can you?

oh, but I do - it's very simple - what are you trying to say is:
for their own profit the abled people restrict or make it wholly impossible for the disabled to show their (disabled') full potential. Right?
That's metaphorical disability.

I'm done with you Grummer.

Fuzzy
 
its not metaphorical disability, you have the word used in the wrong way, because its not 'metaphorical!" it is REAL.

you havent even used a substitute like analogy to create a metaphor.

Lastly "disability person' is a label for convenience for the abled society to perpentuate the disabling phenomenon.

That's enough for now.
 
go back to school

http://[B]medical-dictionary[/B].thefreedictionary.com/disability

disability /dis·a·bil·i·ty/ (dis″ah-bil´it-e)
1. inability to function normally, physically or mentally; incapacity.
2. anything that causes disability.
3. as defined by the federal government: “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last or has lasted for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
developmental disability a substantial handicap of indefinite duration, with onset before the age of 18 years, such as mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or other neuropathy.

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
dis·a·bil·i·ty (ds-bl-t)
n.
A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that prevents or restricts normal achievement.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
disability
[dis′əbil′itē]
Etymology: L, dis, opposite of, habilis, fit
the loss, absence, or impairment of physical or mental fitness. Compare handicapped.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
disability [dis″ah-bil´ĭ-te]
1. impairment of function to below the maximal level, either physically or mentally.
2. anything that causes such impairment.
3. the United States Government defines a disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of an individual's major life activities:” this includes both those individuals with a record of an impairment and those regarded as having such an impairment.
4. the World Health Organization defines disability as loss of function at the level of the whole person, which may include inability to communicate or to perform mobility, activities of daily living, or necessary vocational or avocational activities; rehabilitation is aimed at teaching patients to remediate or compensate and thus maximize functional independence. See also handicap and impairment.
developmental disability a substantial handicap in mental or physical functioning, with onset before the age of 18 and of indefinite duration. Examples are autism, cerebral palsy, uncontrolled epilepsy, certain other neuropathies, and mental retardation.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
disability,
n according to the World Health Organization (WHO) rehabilitation guidelines, impairment of an individual as it affects his or her role in life, such as an inability to work because of a health condition.
Jonas: Mosby's Dictionary of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (c) 2005, Elsevier.
disability,
n the inability to function in the normal or usual manner; examples of an outcome measure are days missing from work or lessened productivity.
disability,
denial of,
n a symptom in which patients deny the existence of a disease or disability. Denial by these patients is a nonrealistic attempt to maintain their predisease status. These patients regard ill health and disability as an imperfection, a weakness, and even a disgrace.
Mosby's Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
disability
1. inability to function normally, physically or mentally; incapacity.
2. anything that causes disability.
Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 3 ed. © 2007 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved
disability
Occupational medicine An inability to work because of physical or mental impairment, which precludes performing expected roles or tasks Degree Partial–some types of labor can be performed; total–degree of impairment precludes any type of gainful employment; disability is affected by various factors, including age, education, economic and social environments Social medicine Handicap A limitation in a person's mental or physical ability to function in terms of work, learning or other socially required or relevant activities, to the extent that the person might be regarded as having a need for certain benefits, compensation, exemptions, special training because of said limitations Examples Impaired hearing, mobility, speech, vision, infection with TB, HIV, or etc, malignancy, past Hx of alcohol or drug abuse, mental illness. See Ambulatory disability, Americans with Disabilities Act, Handicap, Learning disability, Reading disability, Reversible ischemic neurologic, Political correctness, Serious emotional or behavioral disability/disorder, Temporary partial disability, Temporary total disability. Cf Impairment.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
 
Google is my teacher for a lot of things. I am 48 and in the school of life.
 
You took the word right out of my mouth! As I was reading through the comments on this thread I was thinking that some people seem to be attaching a stigma to the words disabled and disability. Having those words apply to you does not disvalue you as a person in any way.

I think this is an example of words having power. Yes there is a definition for the words disabled and disability, but you do not have to let those definitions define YOU. Disablity and disabled are not dirty words ;)

This is how I feel about about it. Deafness IS a disability. Yes it can be limiting in various ways in your life. But the simple fact of accepting the realities of those limitations does mean the person has accepted the stigmata that some people to feel is associated with the words disabled and disability.

I was not born deaf. I started losing my hearing as a young adult, so I never learned ASL, but really who am I going to use that with anyway? My husband, whom I left, flat out refused to learn it with me, and it's not like I can expect everyone (extended family and coworkers) already in my life to go and learn it. I'm the one with the problem. I'm the one that has do something about how I'm going to communicate. I'm the one that has to accept the realities of my disability. I never took lipreading classes either, but over the years my brain trained itself how to do it. I'm not proficient at it, it helps if I have my hearing aid on so I can combine sound cues and lip reading, but I can do it. It's a pain in the ass for anyone who is trying to talk to me to have to be looking right at me, but it doesn't stop people from doing it.

They don't think less of me because they can only talk to me face to face. They don't think less of me if I don't realize it's raining outside because I can't hear the raindrops on the roof. But more importantly, I don't think less of me because I can't hear the rain drops. Being able to hear the raindrops is not what gives my life value or meaning, it just means I can't hear the raindrops.

^All of this. I was not born deaf, but totally lost my hearing at the age of 21. At that time I knew no ASL...therefore my only extended communication with people was through writing. I was in school to be a Rad. Tech. (x-ray tech) but had to drop out..drop out was do to the school refusing to help me and then I had a handful of brain surgeries soon afterwards.

I can not compare myself to someone born-deaf but can easily do so to a late deafened person. Losing your hearing later in life is DEFINITELY a disability, your life changes and most everything around you does too..your current job may no longer be an option (do to lack of communication, etc, etc). Now does my deafness disable me..no it does not, but it is a disability...there is no getting around that.

I can not work at any of my previous employers due to my deafness. I can not work at Valvoline, because I can not hear the topside or bottomside of the pit workers....I can not work at Domino's because I can not answer the phones or take orders from carryout customers.....I can not work at the Nissan plant because I would not be able to hear the possible hazards of working in a manufacturing environment.

If you are born-deaf, deafness may not be a disability to you. You have adapted to the world and you dont "know" what you are missing. But to be late deafened that is most definitely a disability.
 
medical definition of disability is based on the medical MODEL of disabilty. It is much in the same way as how d/Deaf people dont like the medical model of deafness. They are treating people with impairments much like hearing people who percieve Deaf people as a medically-impaired people, and mandating deaf people to have less rights, and put us down in a lower class of people in society.
That is the exactly the same problem facing 'disabled people' as it is facing 'Deaf people' who wants control on sign language. (linguists and educators have long been assholes as we know it, right? well its the same as in disabled schools, and doctors on disabled, NOW it's worse for deaf people, now we are witnessing the transferring of control on deaf people from educators to Doctors BEcause of CI's!!!
this is a tragic for Deaf people, making it SOOO much harder to fight for our rights. SEE??
 
Sorry Grummer
but this is what you are doing to yourself re: disability.
In a way, it disables YOU:

b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

denial - definition of denial by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


but it's YOUR problem.

Fuzzy

WHAT?!

youre the one whos denying the the pains that Deaf people endures,
Let me fucking remind you, Im a POST GRADUATE student in DISABILITY STUDIES in one of the world's top ten most expensive university in the world!! and its not the baby-sitting Gally either so YOU take a hike...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top