Hearing Impaired

[jillio]

It is my understanding, and my belief, that to refer to an indiviudal as "hearing impaired" focuses only on the lack of hearing and is a negative and medicalized term. I personally use the terms deaf, Deaf, or HOH. It is a term that points tothe disability, and stresses what a deaf/Deaf indiviudal does not have as compared to the hearing. It does nothing to promote a positive view of a deaf persona s a whole and capable indiviudal. I find the term offensive.

It was origninally a term coined my the hearing community in an attempt to be sensitive to the feelings of the Deaf Community; however, it was coined without full knowledge of deafness. The term in and of itself, has a connotation of conferringa disabled status onthe individual. Just as I do not know any blind indiviudals who wish to be call "visually impaired" instead of blind, I do not know, from my experience, any deaf individuals who would prefer to be called "hearing impaired" rather than deaf. Such language puts the disability before the person, and it is the person who should be put first.

I don't refer to people who use wheel chairs as "wheel chair bound" but as people who use wheel chairs. I do not refer to people who have developmental disabilities as "developmentally disabled" but as people who have developmental disabilites. I firmly believe that the way we refer to others who happen to be a bit different from those who fall strictly inside the bell curve says a lot for the way we see those people, and the value we place on them. The disability is not the most important aspect of anyone person. The fact that they are a person first is the most important thing. To refer to them in a way that connotates impairment in functioning is insulting to that person.

I also believe that anyone who has any form of disability that refers to themselves using such terms has been taught that their disability is the defining aspect of who they are, and have also been taught to see themselves as less than the majority due tothier difference. I much prefer to focus on ability in my interactions with people, and not thier inability. Lack of hearing, vision, or mobility does not have to be cause for limitations in functioning.

How do you guys feel about this? Would you prefer to be referred to as a "hearing impaired" person or as a deaf, Deaf, HOH person? And for those of you who happen to be deaf/blind, would you prefer that term, or would you prefer the term "hearing and visually impaired"? And in choosing your preference, could you explian why it is that you choose one or the other?

Thanks for your responses.

 

[ismi]

I've described myself as HOH for a long time, and in the last year or so have started to mix "HOH" and "deaf". I think there are times when it would be useful to have a catch-all term like hearing impaired; in spite of the cultural and sensory differences between the groups, we have a lot in common, and it would be useful to have a term that carries that meaning. (I suppose "non-hearing" might work.) That said, I think 'hearing impaired' carries enough baggage that it's not worth using it, even with the best of intentions.

That said, people first language annoys me. As a disabled person (er, oops, 'person with a disability'), I describe myself as a wheelchair user or a wheelie; calling me a person who uses a wheelchair is just cumbersome. I could give other examples of places where 'people first language' isn't my preferred language, but that'd get into a whole 'nother disscussion. I think some of these constructs - person with a disability, etc., can be useful at times, but not always.

Aside from the cumbersome nature of PFL, I think there's a philosophical problem with it. I am disabled; I am an X (just as a placeholder). Insisting that I be called a person with a disability, or a person with X, I think is overly euphemistic. After all, if there's nothing wrong with being disabled, then why is it so necessary to emphasize that I'm a human being? If you're so aware of it, and it's so natural and intuitive and obvious, why do you feel the need to make it explicit? We don't refer to 'people who are women', or 'people with two X chromosomes' for instance.

Just my two cents. My policy is generally that whatever term is acceptable to all parties in a conversation is the one that should be used, though obviously that's hard or impossible to implement on an institutional level.

 

[ismi]

Oh, and I wanted to comment on the "wheelchair bound" thing. The reason that ost of us don't like that term is because it's inaccurate; I've heard people use the term "wheelchair freed", albeit satirically. Many wheelchair users can leave their chairs if necessary (which has occasionally gotten me double-takes from new colleagues, heh). I have heard jokes about how we're all BDSMers, though.

I guess the closest analogy I can think of to something in the deaf world would be calling someone "deaf mute".

 

[jillio]

Oh, and I wanted to comment on the "wheelchair bound" thing. The reason that ost of us don't like that term is because it's inaccurate; I've heard people use the term "wheelchair freed", albeit satirically. Many wheelchair users can leave their chairs if necessary (which has occasionally gotten me double-takes from new colleagues, heh). I have heard jokes about how we're all BDSMers, though.

I guess the closest analogy I can think of to something in the deaf world would be calling someone "deaf mute".

Thank you for sharing that with me, ismi, and I will certainly use this information to reexamine the language I use at times. In real practice, I doubt that I would use the term "person in a wheel chair", but was using it as an example of how we too often see the disability before we see the person, and base our assessment of the indiviudal on the hueristics associated with our first impression. Guess I was a little insensitive in my explanation, huh?

I agree with you completely that we do need to recognize that the disability is present, in order to insure that proper accommodations are available. It is truly a fine line to walk in that recognition, and in not allowing that disability to define the individual or determine capabilites. It's a process I continue to try to refine, and the only way I can see to make that progress is through the input of those who experience the disability themselves. Thanks for your input.

 

[highlands]

hearing impaired... This term may be used for hard of hearing persons.. I don't see any real difference between 'hard of hearing' and 'hearing impaired'... and I don't consider the term rude.. As a hard of hearing person, I am more interested in how I can deal with communication barrier than labels.

 

[jillio]

hearing impaired... This term may be used for hard of hearing persons.. I don't see any real difference between 'hard of hearing' and 'hearing impaired'... and I don't consider the term rude.. As a hard of hearing person, I am more interested in how I can deal with communication barrier than labels.

I agree that labels are an annoyance and often detract from the issue. Unfortunately, labels are a very real part of life, and can determine how you are allowed to deal with that communication barrier.

 

[highlands]

I agree that labels are an annoyance and often detract from the issue. Unfortunately, labels are a very real part of life, and can determine how you are allowed to deal with that communication barrier.

I don't care much about labels.. If someone asks me my hearing status I simply would say I am deaf.. If I say I am hard of hearing then hearing people usually think I can still hear well :roll: it sucks big time

 

[ismi]

agree with you completely that we do need to recognize that the disability is present, in order to insure that proper accommodations are available. It is truly a fine line to walk in that recognition, and in not allowing that disability to define the individual or determine capabilites. It's a process I continue to try to refine, and the only way I can see to make that progress is through the input of those who experience the disability themselves. Thanks for your input.

And not just accommodations, either - I think a that identifying as disabled is an empowering thing for a lot of people with disabilities. Taking ownership of it, sort of thing. I know people who do prefer PFL, but I think that using euphemistic language can send the message that, hey, for all we say this isn't a bad thing, it really is, and we can't talk about it, and it's a taboo. Being able to speak frankly (which PFL doesn't prevent, I just don't think it's the most helpful thing) about it sends the message that disability actually is a normal thing - not just acceptable or tolerable, but actually normal.

I've seen the phrase "deafness isn't a disability, it's just normal" before. Really, though, a lot of people with disabilities have the same attitude! (I think this is recognized by some in the deaf community, but certainly not all, and maybe not even by the majority.) We may call ourselves disabled, but we don't consider ourselves any less normal or capable because of it, and we are proud of our identity in ways that are very similar to the pride that many deaf people feel in theirs. I would go so far as to say that maybe the one is a subset of the other, but I know that's a bit of a touchy assertion.

Personal anecdote on a bit of a derail. I was IMing with a friend, and she was telling me about a conversation she was having with a friend of hers she was with. She was describing me to this friend, and this friend apparently said, "oh, cool wheelchair boy! I know who that is." (This was around the time I started dying my hair in various weird colors.) My friend passed this on to me, because she knew I'd find it hilarious, but her friend was - understandable - quite embarrassed. I've since met this girl, and we hang out now and then,b and I always have the urge to bring it up - it's a fantastic title, and I've used it in other contexts. I don't, because I know she'd be mortified, but .... anyway. It's a good example of how linguistic description is very context-oriented.

 

[jillio]

I don't care much about labels.. If someone asks me my hearing status I simply would say I am deaf.. If I say I am hard of hearing then hearing people usually think I can still hear well :roll: it sucks big time

Agreed. And that is because of the way those hearing people actually define the term. That's the point I was trying to make, and you did it for me!

 

[shel90]

Growing up, I used that label to tell people of my deafness because it was what I was called. I refused to use the word "deaf" cuz I became uncomfortable with it due to people asking me "Are u death?" I got fed up with being asked if I was dead. LOL!

Anyways, I am not sure if it was my ASL classes at ASU or my classes at Gally, but there was a lecture on that term and I finally saw how degrading it is. It started to feel wrong to me because of the word "impaired" so I started telling people that I am deaf. Strange that I got more positive responses about my deafness when I used the word "deaf" instead of "hearing impaired."

My son's speech therapist used that term at first and it made me cringe so I told her. Now, she uses the term "deaf".

 

[jillio]

And not just accommodations, either - I think a that identifying as disabled is an empowering thing for a lot of people with disabilities. Taking ownership of it, sort of thing. I know people who do prefer PFL, but I think that using euphemistic language can send the message that, hey, for all we say this isn't a bad thing, it really is, and we can't talk about it, and it's a taboo. Being able to speak frankly (which PFL doesn't prevent, I just don't think it's the most helpful thing) about it sends the message that disability actually is a normal thing - not just acceptable or tolerable, but actually normal.

I've seen the phrase "deafness isn't a disability, it's just normal" before. Really, though, a lot of people with disabilities have the same attitude! (I think this is recognized by some in the deaf community, but certainly not all, and maybe not even by the majority.) We may call ourselves disabled, but we don't consider ourselves any less normal or capable because of it, and we are proud of our identity in ways that are very similar to the pride that many deaf people feel in theirs. I would go so far as to say that maybe the one is a subset of the other, but I know that's a bit of a touchy assertion.

Personal anecdote on a bit of a derail. I was IMing with a friend, and she was telling me about a conversation she was having with a friend of hers she was with. She was describing me to this friend, and this friend apparently said, "oh, cool wheelchair boy! I know who that is." (This was around the time I started dying my hair in various weird colors.) My friend passed this on to me, because she knew I'd find it hilarious, but her friend was - understandable - quite embarrassed. I've since met this girl, and we hang out now and then,b and I always have the urge to bring it up - it's a fantastic title, and I've used it in other contexts. I don't, because I know she'd be mortified, but .... anyway. It's a good example of how linguistic description is very context-oriented.

Absolutely....I think ownershi[p of the disability is the first step to self acceptance. And I am a believer in that self acceptance is the first step to being the most productive and functional person you can be. Ownership is healthy.

Re: the firend's friend using the term "wheel chair boy"....it's all a matter of context, isn't it? What is offensive in one context is totally hamless, and even humorous in another!

 

[jillio]

Growing up, I used that label to tell people of my deafness because it was what I was called. I refused to use the word "deaf" cuz I became uncomfortable with it due to people asking me "Are u death?" I got fed up with being asked if I was dead. LOL!

Anyways, I am not sure if it was my ASL classes at ASU or my classes at Gally, but there was a lecture on that term and I finally saw how degrading it is. It started to feel wrong to me because of the word "impaired" so I started telling people that I am deaf. Strange that I got more positive responses about my deafness when I used the word "deaf" instead of "hearing impaired."

My son's speech therapist used that term at first and it made me cringe so I told her. Now, she uses the term "deaf".

I know exactly what you mean. When my son was first diagnosed many years ago, it is the term I started out using because that's the term his audi used. Then I started being exposed to Deaf culture, and learned that the term was offensive to them, so I started using deaf. And the more I was around people from the deaf community, the more thier view made sense to me, because I know so many deaf people that I don't consider to be impaired in any way. They do everything in their lives that any of my hearing friends do.

 

[Tousi]

I think I'm between a rock and a hard place in this specific arena: I speak to a lot of hearing people so I feel like I have to preface my conversations with each new, having-never-met-before hearing person that I am hearing impaired. I do this because I'm afraid if I say I'm deaf, that might spell the death knell of that encounter. I also alternatively say I'm hard-of-hearing before conversations commence.

No hate mail, please. Lol....

 

[jillio]

I think I'm between a rock and a hard place in this specific arena: I speak to a lot of hearing people so I feel like I have to preface my conversations with each new, having-never-met-before hearing person that I am hearing impaired. I do this because I'm afraid if I say I'm deaf, that might spell the death knell of that encounter. I also alternatively say I'm hard-of-hearing before conversations commence.

No hate mail, please. Lol....

None forthcoming!

 

[Tousi]

None forthcoming!

Lol, Jillio! Come on, I kin take it! Maybe I can say, "I have a deafness of sorts..." but then again with the all-too-large numbers of hearing people I've met/ran into who say, "death", maybe I'd better not, lol!

 

[jillio]

Lol, Jillio! Come on, I kin take it! Maybe I can say, "I have a deafness of sorts..." but then again with the all-too-large numbers of hearing people I've met/ran into who say, "death", maybe I'd better not, lol!

LOL! Yeah, I'd hate for them to grab you and try to bury you before you were ready!

 

[shel90]

I think I'm between a rock and a hard place in this specific arena: I speak to a lot of hearing people so I feel like I have to preface my conversations with each new, having-never-met-before hearing person that I am hearing impaired. I do this because I'm afraid if I say I'm deaf, that might spell the death knell of that encounter. I also alternatively say I'm hard-of-hearing before conversations commence.

No hate mail, please. Lol....

Yes I will send u hate mail!!!

Anyways, interesting that the "death" comment stopped when I started using Deaf instead of hearing impaired. Maybe people heard me say hearing impaired and they would say "Oh u mean, u are death?"

Another reason I avoided using the term "deaf" growing up was that people who picked on me would say "deaf and dumb" to me.

 

[RedFox]

The terms hearing-impaired shouldn't be used for all deaf people because people who've been deaf all their lives never had their hearing impaired because they never had it in the first place.

 

[RedFox]

The terms hearing-impaired shouldn't be used for all deaf people because people who've been deaf all their lives never had their hearing impaired because they never had it in the first place.

 

[shel90]

The terms hearing-impaired shouldn't be used for all deaf people because people who've been deaf all their lives never had their hearing impaired because they never had it in the first place.

That is a good one!!! Never thought of that.