Smith files Deaf Child’s Bill of Rights Act

[shel90]

Special needs is what provides the basis of most support in the UK, including welfare payments etc. I suggest it does in the USA too. You are right about the US being more 'open' (If I Understand you rightly), but your system is such that it is encouraged, via more choices you have in the USA. The UK bases deaf child education on the premise it needs basic skills to cope in a hearing world, where sign-language is not the language hearing people use, I think most systems are based on that.

Deaf people look on it quite differently obviously, and want their language and culture to be central to everything that is done, they campaign for more hearing to use it, to learn it, but there is still reluctance to 'get out there'. There is I think, a decision by many to opt out of the daily grind of hearing-deaf interaction, and to seek out fellow deaf people and systems where that grind is minimal or doesn't exist, stress-free living !

I think 'mainstream' then takes the view that sign and culture self-marginalises deaf people, creating more 'special need' via more 'support', because interpreters are needed. Culture has validated deaf Isolation and singularity ? Contrary to belief, most do not think mainstream will ever adopt sign language to accommodate deaf so that they could leave their isolations and 'fit in' anywhere because all hearing sign as well. It's not an option many see viable, being practicable. I think without doubt, deaf people would be severely limited in many options without english knowledge (In the UK anyway !), the deaf community and culture is not self-sustainable, it cannot provide everything deaf need, or may aspire to.

I dont recall any of my deaf friends or coworkers saying they wished they wished all hearing people could sign. As for deaf isolation..what do u mean by that? If u are referring to socially, so what? If we are happy being around only people who can sign, why does it bother hearing people? All deaf people do interact with the hearing world in one way or the other unless they locked themselves in their homes and never venture out. What does isolation mean?

As for jobs, that is another story...I think it is more important for deaf people to have excellent reading and writing skills and have an understanding of English than it is for them to be able to speak well/listen/lipread. That would be great thing to have but if the deaf child or person is not able to accomplish that, then it is VERY important focus on literacy skills because that is the key to getting good jobs. Without that, whew! If a deaf person has high literacy skills but no speech/lipreading skills, that person will still be able to communicate with hearing people..we have pagers, computers, paper and pens, and interpreters. Yes, it would be a whole lot better if deaf people also have good speaking and listening skills but even with that, most deaf people are still limited.
I think deaf activism is unrealistic. OK via the 'cultural' upsurge of the last few years an impression is given that is positive to deaf 'ID' but inter-action is still a huge problem with deaf and hearing. In the forseeable future I cannot see deaf sign users interacting with hearing freely. Obviously CODA's are different they are IN a deaf family, most aren't.

Even myself as a oral deaf perso,n with no ASL knowledge growing up, I still wasnt able to interact with hearing freely. Too many misunderstandings due to my speech not being perfect or not being able to catch everything hearing people are saying especially when it comes to a large group of people just chatting away.

For myself, I dont care about having the deaf identity but I identify myself as being more comfortable in a signing environment cuz I can interact with people freely as opposed to playing a guessing game of who is saying what in a spoken environment. Yes, my speech and lipreading skills are excellent and I have no problem communicating with most hearing people on a one-on-one basis but do I want that all the time? Nope..I want the freedom of communicating with people and sign language gives me that. If I dont interact with the hearing world that much, so what? Why does it bother u or other hearing people?

To deny deaf children that seems wrong to me. I dont see why is it so hard to provide both ASL and spoken language for them? What is so hard about that? That way they can be in both worlds.

 

[Berry]

Special needs is what provides the basis of most support in the UK, including welfare payments etc. I suggest it does in the USA too. You are right about the US being more 'open' (If I Understand you rightly), but your system is such that it is encouraged, via more choices you have in the USA. The UK bases deaf child education on the premise it needs basic skills to cope in a hearing world, where sign-language is not the language hearing people use, I think most systems are based on that.

America is multi-cultural by nature. Where I work, and where my grand children go to school there are people who speak only Hmong, Vietnamese, Spanish, etc. Your definition of special needs would put all of them on welfare. We see it as minor problems in communication.

Most of the solutions, such as mime, pointing, using a few key words, and teaching by example are readily available to deaf people.

There is no reason a deaf person using a signed language should not recieve the exact same treatment as hearing people who do not speak English.

Deaf people look on it quite differently obviously, and want their language and culture to be central to everything that is done, they campaign for more hearing to use it, to learn it, but there is still reluctance to 'get out there'. There is I think, a decision by many to opt out of the daily grind of hearing-deaf interaction, and to seek out fellow deaf people and systems where that grind is minimal or doesn't exist, stress-free living !

What you are saying is that deaf people act exactly like hearing people who speak another language primarily or exclusively. At my job Hmong sit at one table, Mexicans at another, Punjabi at another, etc. It is not that they do not like each other, it is simply they are more comfortable speaking the language they are most fluent in. I enjoy and speak some Spanish so I sometimes sit at the Mexican table.

Why should deaf be different?

I think 'mainstream' then takes the view that sign and culture self-marginalises deaf people, creating more 'special need' via more 'support', because interpreters are needed.

This could be seen to mean authority simply does not want to go to the expense of providing what deaf people need -- and therefore insist the deaf person provides what hearing people need.

I'm not sure this is what you mean, but if it came from a politician that is how I would take it.

Culture has validated deaf Isolation and singularity ? Contrary to belief, most do not think mainstream will ever adopt sign language to accommodate deaf so that they could leave their isolations and 'fit in' anywhere because all hearing sign as well. It's not an option many see viable, being practicable.

What culture?

I'm not sure why a deaf person should feel more isolated than any other group within a group. In America that is all we are is groups within groups. At one table where Mexicans sit nine are Catholic and one is Jehovah's Witness. What degree of isolation is that?

I think without doubt, deaf people would be severely limited in many options without english knowledge (In the UK anyway !),

This is true of any non English speaking person in an English speaking country. In the United States we over come those limits for every other non English speaking person why not for the deaf non English speaking person as well?

the deaf community and culture is not self-sustainable, it cannot provide everything deaf need, or may aspire to.

In the UK, or the USA?

Are you a part, or have you ever been a part of the deaf community?

If not, how do you know?

I think deaf activism is unrealistic. OK via the 'cultural' upsurge of the last few years an impression is given that is positive to deaf 'ID' but inter-action is still a huge problem with deaf and hearing.

There is little point in being an activist if you are going to be reasonable. No matter what you demand or how hard you push you will always get less than you want. So you go for broke, you aim for the moon; what you get will probably well below what is needed but it will still be more than you would get if you went into it being 'realistic'.

In the forseeable future I cannot see deaf sign users interacting with hearing freely. Obviously CODA's are different they are IN a deaf family, most aren't.

My mother only knew one language: English. But she could communicate with everyone, regardless of language, regardless of hearing or deafness -- Simply because she was not afraid to use her face, body, hands, to make her meaning clear.

You don't need to know sign language, you just need free yourself from the idea that words are the best and only way to communicate.

 

[Berry]

The Deaf culture in US is A LOT more hoh friendly.

I would say Deaf culture in the US is hearing friendly. When I first learned sign as a kid my best friend was CODA. His parents were Deaf World. Not only was I accepted, who was learning to sign, but my mother was accepted -- She never learned a single sign, but she would get together with some of the deaf woman and they had a wonderful time.

 

[Berry]

To deny deaf children that seems wrong to me. I dont see why is it so hard to provide both ASL and spoken language for them? What is so hard about that? That way they can be in both worlds.

That sums it up for me.

 

[deafdyke]

have noticed in many deaf/hoh children who grew up with the oral only approach, including myself, are delayed in those areas. In my opinion, I dont consider that as success.

Excellent point! A lot of oral only kids don't really have sophisticated or even basic language ability. My best friend is oral deaf (in UK) and her oral skills SUCK.....like her articualtion is very very bad, and her language skills are just really bad in terms of vocab. She also has horrible expressive written language, b/c she didn't have the meat and potatos of Sign growing up.

 

[Passivist]

Interesting responses but there isn't anything changing is there ? It's down to if you think integration is a viable option or even a preferred one doesn't it ? I don't think true integration is possible without a radical challenge to deaf culture and a wider acceptance of 'interventions' like CI's and such,which seems a red flag to a bull with most. Perhaps some honesty is required all around, deaf don't really want any integration if it means they have to accept that. CI and bionics are improving all the time, how long can the 'Deaf' hold out when parents are using these options ? Agreed bionics is many years away yet,and reservations exist on them but they ARE improving, Australia and Canada for example have massive implantation programs. If sound means the demise of sign, is it any wonder it is opposed ?

 

[Berry]

Interesting responses but there isn't anything changing is there ? It's down to if you think integration is a viable option or even a preferred one doesn't it ? I don't think true integration is possible without a radical challenge to deaf culture and a wider acceptance of 'interventions' like CI's and such,which seems a red flag to a bull with most. Perhaps some honesty is required all around, deaf don't really want any integration if it means they have to accept that. CI and bionics are improving all the time, how long can the 'Deaf' hold out when parents are using these options ? Agreed bionics is many years away yet,and reservations exist on them but they ARE improving, Australia and Canada for example have massive implantation programs. If sound means the demise of sign, is it any wonder it is opposed ?

This is half the argument, "Technology will defeat the deaf": But it is only half.

Here is a question for those of you who are deaf. Genetics is rapidly reaching the point where you can choose to have a deaf child born to you. Then you can determine whether it has a CI or grows up in a signing only environment.

This is an opportunity for deaf culture to actually grow rather than diminish -- What will you do? What choices will you make?

How will your children feel about the choices you made?

 

[deafdyke]

Passcifist, you're still not directly addressing our points.

If sound means the demise of sign, is it any wonder it is opposed ?

But it DOESN"T. Back when hearing aids were first popularized a lot of Deaf leaders thought that they were going to spell the END of Deaf culture. There's been countless articles and debates on this. The end finding is that SOME access to sound (whether through hearing aids or CIs) does NOT make hearing people. Exposure to artifcial representation of sound, isn't going to do it. That's like saying that a legally blind person who has some residual vision, experinaces what it's like to be totally sighted. Not so.........the hearing levels that the CI gives, is basicly equalivant to being hoh. This isn't new.....there have been a lot of severe and profounders who are functionally hoh with hearing aids.........and yet, that population hasn't negatively impacted Deaf culture. Hell.......many of them learned ASL as a second language! Certainly, it might spell the end of Deaf culture as a totally seperatist thing.....but maybe that means that it will become more hoh friendly, and not so seperatist! It's not an either or thing.

 

[Berry]

I don't believe sign language will ever die even if there weren't a single deaf individual left on Earth -- Simply because there are people who love sign language, with or without deaf people. There is and always will be a signing culture.

 

[Passivist]

I don't believe sign language will ever die even if there weren't a single deaf individual left on Earth -- Simply because there are people who love sign language, with or without deaf people. There is and always will be a signing culture.

Of course you will then get a counter-view that suggests only deafness provides the real impetus for sign usage and hence to cultural aspiration, they do appear inter-dependant, because hearing aids and such show lesser the need to use sign, it's pretty basic, e.g. if you can still hear with a hearing aid, then you are not going to converse with hearing people in sign are you ? nor would you promote a culture based on it, or be a part of it, what would be the point ? I think deaf people realise this too, hence why there is such opposition and concern shown to 'interventions' and medical research, when it is applied to them.

Bionics and a true replicator of the human ear is many many years away, CI's still some way to go, but there is growing evidence many parents are still going this road. Despite deaf culture complaining parents are ill or non-informed (I don't personally agree), the info so far is having little effect on final decisions with parents. As someone has 'contentiously' suggested it is more probable DNA testing will identify those likely to be produce a deaf child or identify one in the womb, then parents (Women mainly), become the final decision-makers on the future of deaf culture. Deaf fears are well founded, as most would not 'prefer' a deaf child, or any disabled child, if a choice exists.

We may be more enlightened here, but elsewhere where it counts....These decisions are endemic with other 'disabilities' too, even deaf women have taken abortive procedures when a real multi-disability foetus has been identified, so........ do they not take supplements and such to avoid the possibility of a 'disability' ?

It is not my wish to be contentious over this, I'm stating the reality. Can deaf people complain, when they have done exactly the same regarding another identified 'issue' with a foetus ? The fact THEY don't see deafness as a real issue, could well apply to any other disabled sector who feel their 'disability' isn't an 'issue' either.

Promoting the support and welfare of those deaf now is paramount, should we leave the future to those whom it basically will concern ? i.e. the parents ? Hoping no offence is caused.

 

[deafdyke]

I don't think true integration is possible

Well you know Passifist, I seriously doubt that true integration has ever really happened for a dhh kid. Well except maybe for a few unilateral dhh kids. Many oral kids are exposed to the hearing, world, but they aren't really truely integrated into "mainstream society." They can enjoy some parts of the hearing world, but most of them won't ever truely be a part of the hearing world..........b/c they themselves are not hearing. That's like saying that a black kid from an inner city ghetto who is sent to a white suburban school, through a busing program, is integrated into suburban white society.

Despite deaf culture complaining parents are ill or non-informed (I don't personally agree), the info so far is having little effect on final decisions with parents

.
I don't know..........Yes, there are a lot of parents who have their heads stuck up their asses, b/c all they want is a superfically perfect designer kid but there are a lot of parents who are 100% OK with Sign........they just want oral training, as part of the whole toolbox approach. Besides........research has shown that most orally trained kids WILL eventually learn ASL as a second language!

As someone has 'contentiously' suggested it is more probable DNA testing will identify those likely to be produce a deaf child or identify one in the womb, then parents (Women mainly), become the final decision-makers on the future of deaf culture. Deaf fears are well founded, as most would not 'prefer' a deaf child, or any disabled child, if a choice exists.
?

Ummm only a very small percentage of disablities are genetic/ able to be tested for in the womb. Also only a small percentage of deafness is genetic. Most deafness is aquirred.

We may be more enlightened here, but elsewhere where it counts....These decisions are endemic with other 'disabilities' too, even deaf women have taken abortive procedures when a real multi-disability foetus has been identified, so........ do they not take supplements and such to avoid the possibility of a 'disability'
It is not my wish to be contentious over this, I'm stating the reality. Can deaf people complain, when they have done exactly the same regarding another identified 'issue' with a foetus ? The fact THEY don't see deafness as a real issue, could well apply to any other disabled sector who feel their 'disability' isn't an 'issue' either.

Well there's a HUGE differrence between aborting for a relatively mild disablity and aborting for extreme profound disablities.
Like if the baby's died in utereo, or has fatal conditions, it's essentially like turning off life support to a person in long term PVS.
Whereas people can ADAPT to milder disabilites, just as they can adapt to almost anything!
I don't approve of theraputic abortion, in mild disabilty conditions........Most of the time parents are given the ABSOLUTE WORST case scenerio. In a lot of cases, the infomation may be very outdated. I really think that parents who are thinking about theraputic abortion, NEED to BY LAW be hooked up with parent led organizations that could give them better information on the syndrome/condtion then the doctors.

 

[shel90]

Of course you will then get a counter-view that suggests only deafness provides the real impetus for sign usage and hence to cultural aspiration, they do appear inter-dependant, because hearing aids and such show lesser the need to use sign, it's pretty basic, e.g. if you can still hear with a hearing aid, then you are not going to converse with hearing people in sign are you ? nor would you promote a culture based on it, or be a part of it, what would be the point ? I think deaf people realise this too, hence why there is such opposition and concern shown to 'interventions' and medical research, when it is applied to them.

Bionics and a true replicator of the human ear is many many years away, CI's still some way to go, but there is growing evidence many parents are still going this road. Despite deaf culture complaining parents are ill or non-informed (I don't personally agree), the info so far is having little effect on final decisions with parents. As someone has 'contentiously' suggested it is more probable DNA testing will identify those likely to be produce a deaf child or identify one in the womb, then parents (Women mainly), become the final decision-makers on the future of deaf culture. Deaf fears are well founded, as most would not 'prefer' a deaf child, or any disabled child, if a choice exists.

We may be more enlightened here, but elsewhere where it counts....These decisions are endemic with other 'disabilities' too, even deaf women have taken abortive procedures when a real multi-disability foetus has been identified, so........ do they not take supplements and such to avoid the possibility of a 'disability' ?

It is not my wish to be contentious over this, I'm stating the reality. Can deaf people complain, when they have done exactly the same regarding another identified 'issue' with a foetus ? The fact THEY don't see deafness as a real issue, could well apply to any other disabled sector who feel their 'disability' isn't an 'issue' either.

Promoting the support and welfare of those deaf now is paramount, should we leave the future to those whom it basically will concern ? i.e. the parents ? Hoping no offence is caused.

Whatever the future brings us..so be it. We cant predict it but the most important thing now is that there are many deaf children who dont have full access to language and as a result, they suffer academically and I DO NOT think that is RIGHT! That is the whole point of this thread. Who cares about being able to interact with hearing people, or being "isolated", the foucus is on full access to language therefore enchancing the literacy skills of the children. That should be the MOST important thing for the deaf children to have an opportunity and to deny them language so they can "interact" with other people like they are "normal" is just so wrong. I have strong feelings about this cuz I see it in my field of work and see these children suffer in school cuz of that reason.

 

[shel90]

Well you know Passifist, I seriously doubt that true integration has ever really happened for a dhh kid. Well except maybe for a few unilateral dhh kids. Many oral kids are exposed to the hearing, world, but they aren't really truely integrated into "mainstream society." They can enjoy some parts of the hearing world, but most of them won't ever truely be a part of the hearing world..........b/c they themselves are not hearing. That's like saying that a black kid from an inner city ghetto who is sent to a white suburban school, through a busing program, is integrated into suburban white society.

I AGREE! Gosh...I was made to be like a hearing person and I sure didnt fit fully into the hearing world. Now, I feel happy being in a signing enviornment. Last night, I went to a bar mitzavah with 7 of my other co workers. We had a great time conversing and joking in ASL. If they were all hearing and didnt use sign language, I sure would have been BORED out of my mind. How is that for integration? Who wants to be bored and staring at the walls just because his/her hearing is not like "normal" hearing people's? Not me! My life growing up was like that and I am done with being bored. I want to have fun and not have to work hard at trying to catch everything that is being said. If that prevents me from integrating from hearing people, OH WEEEELLLL!! I am happy so who cares? Why is that so important?


.
I don't know..........Yes, there are a lot of parents who have their heads stuck up their asses, b/c all they want is a superfically perfect designer kid but there are a lot of parents who are 100% OK with Sign........they just want oral training, as part of the whole toolbox approach. Besides........research has shown that most orally trained kids WILL eventually learn ASL as a second language!

I am a PERFECT example of that!

Ummm only a very small percentage of disablities are genetic/ able to be tested for in the womb. Also only a small percentage of deafness is genetic. Most deafness is aquirred.

Well there's a HUGE differrence between aborting for a relatively mild disablity and aborting for extreme profound disablities.
Like if the baby's died in utereo, or has fatal conditions, it's essentially like turning off life support to a person in long term PVS.
Whereas people can ADAPT to milder disabilites, just as they can adapt to almost anything!
I don't approve of theraputic abortion, in mild disabilty conditions........Most of the time parents are given the ABSOLUTE WORST case scenerio. In a lot of cases, the infomation may be very outdated. I really think that parents who are thinking about theraputic abortion, NEED to BY LAW be hooked up with parent led organizations that could give them better information on the syndrome/condtion then the doctors.

 

[deafdyke]

Who cares about being able to interact with hearing people, or being "isolated",

I know Shel.................although many oral deaf kids and people have semi decent spoken language skills, it doesn't mean they aren't isolated. Many oral deaf people (including so called superstars) have significent social issues........haven't you ever heard about all the dhh people who avoid social situtions with hearing?

 

[shel90]

I know Shel.................although many oral deaf kids and people have semi decent spoken language skills, it doesn't mean they aren't isolated. Many oral deaf people (including so called superstars) have significent social issues........haven't you ever heard about all the dhh people who avoid social situtions with hearing?

I know but that is not my primary concern but it seems to be the primary concern for many hearing people. My primary concern is literacy skills.

 

[Passivist]

I know Shel.................although many oral deaf kids and people have semi decent spoken language skills, it doesn't mean they aren't isolated. Many oral deaf people (including so called superstars) have significent social issues........haven't you ever heard about all the dhh people who avoid social situtions with hearing?

I find that isolation from the mainstream, drives most things, even deaf cultural aspiration, that some deaf have uniquely side-stepped this by banding together, has this changed the real issue ? Many with loss, can't be a part of that, so HAVE to go for some sort of compromise or REALLY be, or remain isolated. It is so practical and logical to congregate with like minded people, what is 'like' when so many divisions of mode and lifestyles exist ? Whether it will allow for integration to ever happen I have serious doubt. I suppose there is some ambiguity in deaf campaigns for access, campaigning for full inclusion while holding the basic tenet they are never going to do that, as they prefer their own 'kind' seems a paradox, and to some slightly depressing. Is the deaf community to be all there is...

 

[deafdyke]

find that isolation from the mainstream, drives most things, even deaf cultural aspiration, that some deaf have uniquely side-stepped this by banding together, has this changed the real issue ? Many with loss, can't be a part of that, so HAVE to go for some sort of compromise or REALLY be, or remain isolated. It is so practical and logical to congregate with like minded people, what is 'like' when so many divisions of mode and lifestyles exist ? Whether it will allow for integration to ever happen I have serious doubt.

*pounds head against wall*
You don't get it at ALL!!!! The gross majority of even "oral superstars" tend to have significent social difficulties in the mainstream. That means pretty much that they aren't as much a part of the hearing world as some pro oral utopia experts would have it. We can parcipate in the hearing world........but most of us will never be 100% a part of the hearing world. Sheesh, even unilateral and postlingally deaf people sometimes feel that way!
Why do you idealize the mainstream? Sure, its great, but Deaf culture and Sign, ALSO have great things about it. Just b/c a dhh kid gets exposed to Deaf culture and Sign, it doesn't mean that they don't want to be a part of the hearing world/that the hearing world sucks/that they haven't suceeded in the hearing world. It simply means that they acknowledge that a diversity of things, is better then being in a melting pot and trying to assimulate into the hearing world. Dhh people as a group, have TRIED and TRIED for AGES to 100% be a part of the hearing world. Unfortunatly, the fact is that they will NEVER BE hearing! (either culturally or physically)

 

[deafdyke]

Looks like you dont know how to respond!

 

[Passivist]

Looks like you dont know how to respond!

Acquired deaf will alway aspire to what was, I was stating they can't be part of any cultural world, or hearing world, it aint gonna happen I agree, their aims, are always toward what was, because which they see as swapping one form of Isolation for yet another, but with people that are not their peers at all, it doesn't work of course.

Their background is hearing, no matter how much of their life remaining is spent being deaf (It's called disablement), they'll give the pretence of wanting in, but their heart will never be in it. I think the cultural sector knows this immediately. The paradox's of acquired deaf viewpoints are because they fit in nowhere really, and are trying to rationalise it, and can't. Unless you have lost hearing over a period of time, you won't follow. They do see deafness as a totally negative experience mainly, because it is to them, it's why they so vehemently go at cultural deaf over CI views and such, they see it as a sector trying to prevent research happening, unless it is to prolong the agony. I doubt many will ever be convinced deafness has many positives.

I have many AD friends and they mostly agree they want as much deafness eradicated as research can manage. This comes after perhaps many years of fighting deafness off and losing, hanging on to the very last decibel they can, the drive to regain hearing and its ways are very strong, can they ever be compatible with cultural deaf, who appear to want the exact opposite ?

There is a lot of conflict (especially the last few years as AD find a voice), when they see cultural deaf maintaining deafness doesn't exist, it's a god-given right, or the norm or something, Acquired deaf are living examples this isn't the case, and saying so. Some are anti-culture yes on that basis. It's the frustration and effect of a communicational disablement and a life of socialising cut short forever, you need to understand this are a traumatised and lately a very angry deaf sector.

 

[deafdyke]

Oh, so we're talking about two completely different populations.
Yeah, I'll grant you that the issues of the relatively late deafened folks, are very different from those who have always been deaf. But the postlingal childhood dhh population is very small. I mean I can totally 100% undy why they see deafness as a handicap. They had hearing and, know what its like....they acknowledge the absense of a sense. But I mean, there are some posties (especially those who might have had progressive losses) who feel like they fit in to the deaf world!
I can understand...........but the thing is........one wonders if a lot of the ones who started out with hoh losses, might be simply suffering from "oral is the best thing in the world" philosophy. Maybe if we equipted them with a full toolbox, they'd be a lot happier. Sure, that wouldn't help the kids who suffer sudden losses, postlingally........but then again the postlingal population is very very small. And I mean even with those kids, ASL and Deaf culture might be of benifit. There have always been postie kids, who thrive on Deaf culture. It's a very indivdual thing.........hey, there are kids who have always been dhh, who don't really find ASL/Deaf culture to be benifical. You really can't paint with a broad brush.
It's like........someone who's always been in a wheelchair, doesn't miss walking..........but someone who was in an accident at five or six or who became a wheechair user has a different perspective. Your perspective is really really widely different from those of us who have ALWAYS been dhh.
It took me a long long time to realize that..........I'm a fence sitter, but that doesn't mean that I don't belong in the deaf or the hearing world..........it just means I get the best of both worlds! I can hear and speechread a conversation..........but at the same time, I can turn my hearing aids off when there's sound I don't want to hear.