I see it as the hearing that's impaired, not the person. Just as I see the words "visually impaired" to mean that the vision is impaired, not the person. Yet I don't see people with visual impairments go up in arm over the term "visually impaired." I see it as much ado over nothing. Maybe a cultural thing that's running amok?
There's just as much controversy over terminology in the blind community. Some people take issue with the term "visually impaired" for a lot of parallel reasons, like thinking it indicates they have more vision than they do (or any at all if they're total). On the flip side, NFB members who would be considered visually impaired by the medical community often call themselves "blind" because they function as a blind person, in the sense they rely on non-visual techniques to do everyday tasks instead of trying to rely on a small percentage of vision.
I began my life as an innocent child.
most people are, doctors, social workers, judges, cops, enforcement law people, attorneys, citizens and more generally who are hearing. there are more hearies than HOHs and even deafies together, right?
just saying what dictionary says; unable to hear. it didn't say with or without devices though.
I can communicate with hearing people orally, probably more dependent on body language and lipreading than hearing, and I do hear some conversations with hearing aids. I will still consider myself as deaf and Deaf though, regardless of what anyone says, because I feel more comfortable with those labels. From what I can understand, from reading other people's posts, I probably behave more like WriteAlex, naisho or kokonut in the hearing world socially.
