It it really the deaf/Deaf community?

Alright, I'll try to get us back on topic.

Let's start with the obvious:
If a hearing parent chooses either Oralism or CI for their deaf child, they get more negative comments than a hearing parent who chooses to put a child in a deaf school (would it even matter what type of deaf school as long they use some visual language?)

Would most people agree with this?
 
Daredevel7 said:
Alright, I'll try to get us back on topic.

Let's start with the obvious:
If a hearing parent chooses either Oralism or CI for their deaf child, they get more negative comments than a hearing parent who chooses to put a child in a deaf school (would it even matter what type of deaf school as long they use some visual language?)

Would most people agree with this?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Kinda off topic: I grew up thinking Oriental is very offensive term, so I never used it and corrected it on other people when they said it. I became good friends with a Chinese guy and he is perfectly fine with "Oriental", "Asian", or "Chinese". I actually looked it up, and some Chinese people DO get offended from the term Oriental, EXCEPT if you are from Europe. It's the norm there.

Conclusion? Stop focusing so much on politically correct words! It's about the INTENT, not the word itself!!! Do you think Clear Sky really intended to put herself and her classmates down by using the word "hearing impaired"?? The point that "hearing impaired" is offensive to some people is already made and duly noted.
Click to expand...


Daredevel7 - :gpost:
 
jillio said:
No, I wouldn't agree with that at all.
Click to expand...

Okay so trying to rephrase, are you saying that there is a normal distribution among all deaf people in terms of their reactions towards hearing parents, no matter their choice?

Meaning there's only a handful of deaf people who are extremely against their choices and exact same handful of deaf people who 100% support their choices? And everyone else is in between? No matter their choices?
 
Daredevel7 said:
Alright, I'll try to get us back on topic.

Let's start with the obvious:
If a hearing parent chooses either Oralism or CI for their deaf child, they get more negative comments than a hearing parent who chooses to put a child in a deaf school (would it even matter what type of deaf school as long they use some visual language?)

Would most people agree with this?
Click to expand...

From Deaf people, yes. From hearing profesionals, NO!
 
faire_jour said:
From Deaf people, yes. From hearing profesionals, NO!
Click to expand...

What do u mean by that? Dont hearing professionals criticize parents for taking the ASL route? There has been many reports of that in different threads and in other blog websites.
 
shel90 said:
What do u mean by that? Dont hearing professionals criticize parents for taking the ASL route? There has been many reports of that in different threads and in other blog websites.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you do a CI, you get bad comments from Deaf people, but encouraged by professionals. If you do ASL, you get the exact opposite reactions.
 
faire_jour said:
Exactly. If you do a CI, you get bad comments from Deaf people, but encouraged by professionals. If you do ASL, you get the exact opposite reactions.
Click to expand...

I see..thanks for clarifying. :ty:
 
Daredevel7 said:
Okay so trying to rephrase, are you saying that there is a normal distribution among all deaf people in terms of their reactions towards hearing parents, no matter their choice?

Meaning there's only a handful of deaf people who are extremely against their choices and exact same handful of deaf people who 100% support their choices? And everyone else is in between? No matter their choices?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't agree with that, either. The choices you have listed are far too narrow to make a claim of that nature.
 
faire_jour said:
Exactly. If you do a CI, you get bad comments from Deaf people, but encouraged by professionals. If you do ASL, you get the exact opposite reactions.
Click to expand...

So you think those hearing professionals know better than we do? (curious)
 
jillio said:
No, I wouldn't agree with that, either. The choices you have listed are far too narrow to make a claim of that nature.
Click to expand...

I was just trying to show that there is a tendency that the deaf community would be against the oralism/CI choices of a hearing parent, that's all. I understand that there's always extremes but I think that the deaf community tends to lean towards negativity when it comes to Oralism/CI choices but positivity when it comes to using visual languages.

I picked one side to start with. We can apply this principal for hearing parents towards the deaf community, or better yet, the medical community towards the deaf community.
 
Oh my, I really can't believe Shel and Jillio. Wow, the term hearing impaired being used as if it's some kind of slur like those in the African American Community. Oh my... WOW, you do "understand." Hearing Impaired has nothing to do with being in the past. In fact, it is still used today, and it is not offensive. I have read about this, and this is term is used as a general statement to describe deaf and hard of hearing the same. It's not intended to put people down as you seem to show with your examples.

Jillio, you can go on to satisfy what you don't like, but I stand behind what I said was VERY appropriate. It's MY experience, and the term "Hearing Imaired" seems to fit right. It makes SENSE to me, and if you don't agree. I truly don't care. It's not your experience or your business to tell me what terms I should use. If it's MY STORY, and that was the appropriate term as I feel is right, I will use it because I feel it is appropriate.

You can go on, but I don't agree with you. So, we can agree to disagree. I just won't let stand by you picking on me for that and making it a big deal. Others here get the point, so I don't need to explain more. I feel it's truly to satisfy your goal as well as a few others. I was picked on this for a silly reason other than to satisfy your biased goals.

I stand by what I said is very appropriate. We can agree to disagree.

I am a deaf person technically by my hearing loss, and you talking to me about a political correct term from a hearing person's point of view is a bit of an insult. Correcting me on a term?! I don't care what deaf, hard of hearing, hearing impaired tell you or what research you have done, I don't expect you to know better than I.
 
ClearSky said:
Oh my, I really can't believe Shel and Jillio. Wow, the term hearing impaired being used as if it's some kind of slur like those in the African American Community. Oh my... WOW, you do "understand." Hearing Impaired has nothing to do with being in the past. In fact, it is still used today, and it is not offensive. I have read about this, and this is term is used as a general statement to describe deaf and hard of hearing the same. It's not intended to put people down as you seem to show with your examples.

Jillio, you can go on to satisfy what you don't like, but I stand behind what I said was VERY appropriate. It's MY experience, and the term "Hearing Imaired" seems to fit right. It makes SENSE to me, and if you don't agree. I truly don't care. It's not your experience or your business to tell me what terms I should use. If it's MY STORY, and that was the appropriate term as I feel is right, I will use it because I feel it is appropriate.

You can go on, but I don't agree with you. So, we can agree to disagree. I just won't let stand by you picking on me for that and making it a big deal. Others here get the point, so I don't need to explain more. I feel it's truly to satisfy your goal as well as a few others. I was picked on this for a silly reason other than to satisfy your biased goals.

I stand by what I said is very appropriate. We can agree to disagree.

I am a deaf person technically by my hearing loss, and you talking to me about a political correct term from a hearing person's point of view is a bit of an insult. Correcting me on a term?! I don't care what deaf, hard of hearing, hearing impaired tell you or what research you have done, I don't expect you to know better than I.
Click to expand...

Question: why do you want to label me, "hearing impaired"?

Why not just label me--Byrdie714?
 
shel90 said:
Hearing impaired is just as offensive as some other negative labels that puts a group of people in a negative light. If u want to accept that for yourself, it is your right.

It is not silly...it is all about a change in attitudes and views and if we want the negative views of deafness, deaf people, and sign language to be changed into a more positive view, starting out with eliminating negative labels like that is taking one step to that goal.
Click to expand...

Whose goal is it? I am deaf just like you, remember? I am not annoyed by that term. Shel, you're wrong about "change in attitudes and views." I didn't use Hearing Impaired as a negative view. It was never used as a negative term. Who's goal are you talking about?
 
Byrdie714 said:
Uh....would you like me to focus on your disability or YOU as the person--ClearSky?
Click to expand...

How is deaf or hard of hearing focusing on YOU the person and not the disability? Anyone knows you can't hear.

And Birdye714, you stand out. Why? Oh, I remember:

I
think it's because some of us still have concerns about the CI's.

For an example: what if you daughter gets into a fight with another girl and she rips out the CI? Then what?
Click to expand...

I saw this as bringing more negative labels towards implanting CI children. Never saw you write why you put RIPS out the CI. Why?
 
ClearSky said:
How is deaf or hard of hearing focusing on YOU the person and not the disability? Anyone knows you can't hear.

And Birdye714, you stand out. Why? Oh, I remember:

I

I saw this as bringing more negative labels towards implanting CI children. Never saw you write why you put RIPS out the CI. Why?
Click to expand...

Ahh..... an individual that answers a question with a question. :roll:

Interesting that you mentioned the CI quote as I recalled--no one could answer that question.

Nevertheless--we are talking about the term of using, 'hearing impaired' vs 'Deaf', not using CI's as that is a separate category. Please stay on topic--thank you very much.

Apparently it seems that you are focusing on the disability of the individual and not looking at the 'whole person'.

The 'whole person' approach looks at the individual and what their contributions are to society, happiness, mental well being, etc, etc. The disability of the 'whole person' is a small thing and not a big deal.

For an individual that looks at 'disability' and nothing but disability is limiting themselves and the individual which is sad, including the terminology.
 
ClearSky said:
Whose goal is it? I am deaf just like you, remember? I am not annoyed by that term. Shel, you're wrong about "change in attitudes and views." I didn't use Hearing Impaired as a negative view. It was never used as a negative term. Who's goal are you talking about?
Click to expand...

The goal for the view on deafness as being "impaired" and give the general population like we arent capable of doing something. I have had people tell me that they are sorry that I was impaired growing up when I told them I was hearing impaired. I didnt know why...after getting involved with the Deaf community and learning about how the general population views us, I finally understood why people said that to me.

Like Jillo said, u can apply it to yourself. I dont care but the deaf community is not a hearing impaired community.

Up to you if u want to take it as we are picking on you but the truth we arent ..we are explaining why we feel about that term.
 
Back
Top