WFD now bans "deaf-mute" and "hearing impaired"

I think there is a pattern to PC teams! It seems to me they are always longer (word length or nbr. of words) than what they are to replace and not just the ones under discussion here!
 
Jane B. said:
I think there is a pattern to PC teams! It seems to me they are always longer (word length or nbr. of words) than what they are to replace and not just the ones under discussion here!
Click to expand...

no, its political, by that, its means to change 'what we supposed to think' so we follow the 'new rules', in other words, to pacify d/Deaf people. Again it is hearing who is deciding what it's called...what about CI? could it really mean they found a way to effectively wipe out deafness? hence the removal of the terms?
 
AlleyCat said:
I've never been a fan of the word mute. I can't explain why. Guess it just feels "negative" to me, but that's just me. I like the term voice-off much better although I understand the meanings behind the two words are different.
Click to expand...

It's also very archaic......
 
Grummer said:
in that case I dont think you should be a member there, given that theres tons written about bad history associations with these words in the past (and in present's crass ignorance which many people still shows! (just read the news...is simple enough...to witness this persistence)...
Hearing Impaired shouldnt be banned either, because this delinates who is not culturally Deaf and this still prefers to function in the hearing world but with deep audiological deafness, or to those IN the Deaf world describes those with a Lot more residential hearing, 'hearing like hard of hearing'...but they identify themselves as "'hearing impaired"...

WFD banning both is stupid, and obviously they arent' listening to us...
Click to expand...

Both terms can be discussed yes. Guess I miss a more intellectual approach from WFD. A reason is perhaps that deaf community is an oppressed community, making it harder to discuss issues freely in public in fear of disagreements being exploited by the oppressors?
 
deafdyke said:
It's also very archaic......
Click to expand...

That's a reason I like it. Back to the golden days, before oralism. I imagine that after oralism, mute became more negative, but this is just wild guessing. Voice off is funky. Can like it too!
 
Would "deaf/mute" be less offensive than "deaf-mute?" With the slash, it's more describing a condition, whereas with the hyphen, it's describing a person.

I was thinking, if I wanted to put info on a Med-alert bracelet, for instance, and if I couldn't speak, "deaf/mute" would be an economical way to say that.

I've had surgery for different things a few times, and invariably, when I'm coming out of the anesthesia, a doctor or nurse will start asking "can you hear me? Are you with us?" or something like that. The first time was back in 1984, when I still had decent hearing but was wearing hearing aids, too. I remember coming groggily awake, and a nurse was saying "If you can hear me, squeeze my hand" and another nurse said "the records say she uses hearing aids, she probably can't hear you."

The weird thing was that I could hear both those nurses, since they were right up by my head.

In later surgeries, once I was able to keep my aids in, and once I could not. I told the surgeon that I probably wouldn't be able to hear anything, but I would try to let them know as I was waking up. He just said "don't worry about, it will be fine."

And it was. But I felt it was a good thing for them to know I wouldn't be able to hear very much, regardless of how "awake" I was.
 
I think it really depends on the perspective one takes - deaf or Deaf - as to how they perceive words like "deaf/mute" and forms thereof, etc.

I agree with DD and AC about "mute" regardless of how you place it, I think it's misleading and derogatory.
 
dogmom said:
I think it really depends on the perspective one takes - deaf or Deaf - as to how they perceive words like "deaf/mute" and forms thereof, etc.

I agree with DD and AC about "mute" regardless of how you place it, I think it's misleading and derogatory.
Click to expand...

Then how do you refer to someone that does not speak/talk without using a lot of words? Isn't this another case of trying too hard to be PC?
 
I personally would just use "doesn't speak". For me that's not a lot of words.

or non-oral, voice-off, Deaf <one word or sign!> ....depending on what more I knew of them.

for me, has nothing to do with PC, has to do with respect and seeing myself in someone else.
 
drphil said:
Cheetah: what do I think-answer NO.
Click to expand...

Words influence the way we think and act. You are right, words do not change the condition. But, words do influence how we feel. So, this makes is important to be sensative in the words we choose. How does the other persons feel about the word mute?

You have already seen the power of words here in AD. Many of use liked to be called deaf. You prefer to be called DEAF. There is power in the words you choose to use. Choose a wrong word and everyone might be uset with you. Something to think about.
 
flip said:
Found this here, a statement from WFD, About us



I find it a bit funny that they say it's not acceptable to use the term "deaf-mute" for deaf persons who can't talk. I'm a member of WFD by the way.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

ha ha


i would prefer "voice off" because its our choice not to use voice or not. Does not mean that we cant talk. We do have sound in our voice box but not use it therefore its voice off.

Mute does sound very negatively word to me like no voicebox then can't talk. it makes sense for someone who just lost their voicebox then mute there you go.
 
Beach girl said:
Would "deaf/mute" be less offensive than "deaf-mute?" With the slash, it's more describing a condition, whereas with the hyphen, it's describing a person.
Click to expand...

Deaf-mute has negative connotations associated with it for it was often inter-changeable with deaf and dumb (the belief that deaf people cannot learn due to hearing loss and therefore considered stupid) and "mute" - it's not truly accurate for deaf people usually have functional vocal cords and they do vocalize.

Did you know under Jewish law, deaf-mutes were not considered moral agents (people who can reason and form self-interested judgments) and as such, were not permitted to own estate, act as witnesses or be charged for any crime?
 
No, I didn't know that about Jewish law.

Deaf and dumb didn't mean stupid, though. "Dumb" in that context means "not speaking." We still use the phrase as in "I was dumb-founded" or "I was dumb-struck," meaning "I was so surprised I was speechless."

Obviously I know that over time, "dumb" by itself has come to mean "stupid," but that wasn't the original meaning.
 
Beach girl said:
No, I didn't know that about Jewish law.

Deaf and dumb didn't mean stupid, though. "Dumb" in that context means "not speaking." We still use the phrase as in "I was dumb-founded" or "I was dumb-struck," meaning "I was so surprised I was speechless."

Obviously I know that over time, "dumb" by itself has come to mean "stupid," but that wasn't the original meaning.
Click to expand...

Whether dumb did not intend to mean stupid in its original meaning, in this day and age, when you call someone dumb, you are calling them stupid, not mute. Hence it's considered offensive. If you disagree, I challenge you to go up to someone and call them "dumb" and see if they think you are calling them mute.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Whether dumb did not intend to mean stupid in its original meaning, in this day and age, when you call someone dumb, you are calling them stupid, not mute. Hence it's considered offensive. If you disagree, I challenge you to go up to someone and call them "dumb" and see if they think you are calling them mute.
Click to expand...

Beach Girl already said, "Obviously I know that over time, "dumb" by itself has come to mean "stupid," but that wasn't the original meaning."
 
Back
Top