A Violation of Human Rights Re: Forcing A Deaf Child to Wear CI

[shel90]

Yes, flip, it is very prevalent. That is why I am asking the question to everyone who is hearing, which Grendel is so sleathily avoiding. I am not out to trap or corner anyone, but trying to draw lines as it were, between the unintentional and intentional. Every hearing person would be biased to Audism swayed unbeknowingly by public opinion. Public opinion is often set by the media or specialists in a certain field. I am just probing whether this would be a fact. This does not make them audist however. An audist is one who has a conviction that hearing is better than not hearing. I am going pretty much from public concensus over the years of having hearing people saying 'You don't know what you are missing out on'. Haven't we all heard this time in time out, even some newbies on AD have begun with that.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

if it is so easy, why are parents continually being told that it is cruel and that their children will end up with both language and cognitive issues if they choose that path? (as opposed to ASL)

Nobody said it was easy.... I shake my head at you

beclak has repeately said that there is no problem with deaf people learning spoken language without hearing aids or CIs. She says they have been doing it for years without problems and that it is offensive to suggest that it can lead to deficits. That there are plenty that have done just fine.

so my question is, is that true? Is it not a problem? If thousands of kids did it without a problem (which she is continually saying), then why is it so horrible for a parent to not use ASL?

that is what i meant by "having it both ways".

 

[posts from hell]

Wirelessly posted



the post was for the general audience, not you specifically.

but this one is aimed at you. You say that kids today don't need a lot of therapy but then in the same breath say that they still have language issues....uh, wouldn't that mean that they were in need of therapy?! If you are saying that they can acheive with minimal work, but still end up with "screwed up language" (including that legs, spiders example you throw around), that means they didn't have enough access to the language and therapy they needed when they were young...which is what you yourself are advocating!

People, observe Faire Jour's technique: Once confronted with something hard to respond to, defer to other posts that has some holes in it and insert words.

 

[shel90]

^ AUDIST.

Didn't someone say that you start off with deeply ingrained audism and when you recognize it and still do it, you are considered an audist? She said there's been several times.



I kid. People just need to calm down with the whole "YOURE AN AUDIST" and "HOW AM I AN AUDIST?" stuff.

This is exactly why I hate labels because people spend half of the time trying to tell someone that they are Label X and that accused Label X person spends the other half denying that s/he is not.

WHO CARES? Focus on the ACTIONS and SAYINGS rather than labels.

That's why I have stated that the views that they share are audist rather than saying that they are audists.

Maybe in the past, I called some people audist and realized that wasnt the approach to take. It is the views that are audistic.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

I can speechread - very very good.

I wind up interpreting for people who have had a CI for their entire lives.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.. Oh, the IRONY!!! Would love love love for you to meet the presidents of Clarke, CID and the other oral programs out there.

he claim is that a deaf child can fluently learn spoken language (without delays and deficits) through speech reading alone.

and i don't buy it. I think it is cruel, and most of the time futile. So many deaf people say that lipreading is nothing but guessing and it is exhausting and nearly impossible...so why also claim that it is a perfectly ligit way to learn fluent language?

So if speechreading is cruel and futile, then how come forcing a kid to exclusively use their residual hearing isn't?
We're not saying that speechreading ALONE can give fluent oral abilty..We're saying it's a useful tool that can be used as part of a bigger picture......

except that is exactly what beclak is claiming in this very thread. Read back a few pages. She claims that deaf kids have been fluently learning spoken english without the aid of ha or CIs and that it is offensive to claim otherwise.

 

[posts from hell]

Wirelessly posted



except that is exactly what beclak is claiming in this very thread. Read back a few pages. She claims that deaf kids have been fluently learning spoken english without the aid of ha or CIs and that it is offensive to claim otherwise.

Why are you arguing otherwise?

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

except that is exactly what beclak is claiming in this very thread. Read back a few pages. She claims that deaf kids have been fluently learning spoken english without the aid of ha or CIs and that it is offensive to claim otherwise.

Why are you arguing otherwise?

either oralism works or it doesn't. Either unamplified kids learn fluent spoken language without struggles and deficits or they don't. Either lipreading provides enough information to learn language or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, depending on what you are arguing about.

when she wants to argue against CIs she says that lipreading is enough to learn fluent spoken language. When she wants to argue against oralism, suddenly it isn't and it is cruel to deny a child ASL.

 

[posts from hell]

Wirelessly posted



either oralism works or it doesn't. Either unamplified kids learn fluent spoken language without struggles and deficits or they don't. Either lipreading provides enough information to learn language or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, depending on what you are arguing about.

Sorry, that is your world. The deaf has been adapting totally differently. I think you're grossly underestimating the deaf.

I think you should chill and lay back.. because these people are speaking from experience, something you dont have.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



either oralism works or it doesn't. Either unamplified kids learn fluent spoken language without struggles and deficits or they don't. Either lipreading provides enough information to learn language or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, depending on what you are arguing about.

Sorry, that is your world. The deaf has been adapting totally differently. I think you're grossly underestimating the deaf.

I think you should chill and lay back.. because these people are speaking from experience, something you dont have.

that's why i flat out asked. And i will again.

is speechreading enough to learn fluent spoken language (both expressively and receptively) through?

 

[LDNanna]

Jillio, the stories and anecdotes you have told about your experiences with your son astound me. I especially like how you followed him into his world. I was floored with a mother's love. Thank you so much for your frankness, the sharing of your successful parenting and your perspectives. Wow, moving to an area with a deaf community. Ma'am, you are one great lady.

I do wish that others whom I believe do protest too much (ala Hamlet) would truly understand your attempt at help and teaching rather than take offense.

It reminds me of a Buddhist friend who said "to take offense is to give offense". Brilliant eh?

 

[BecLak]

Honestly, there was more than one time. All the time I was attempting to become fluent in ASL and integrate myself fully into Deaf Culture, I had thoughts that it would be so much easier if my child could hear and communicate as I did. When I was battling school systems for accommodations, I wished that he were not deaf, and did not have to go through the things the school system seemed intent on putting the both of us through. When another child would make fun of him, I wished he was hearing and did not have to endure the meanness of some. I wished that he would be able to hear music as I did until I saw him perform in his deaf school's signing choir and learned that music seen is just as beautiful as music heard. I wished that, as a child, I could take him to the theatre to see the new releases of children's films instead of having to wait until it was released for home viewing because he needed close captioning. These are just a few of the instances. It has gotten oh, so much better as he grew up and I began to understand more about his experience. I have not had thoughts such as those for many years, but would not be surprised at all, were I to have one again at some time. It is perfectly natural and human. Hiding and denying from such thoughts does parent or child no good what so ever.

Thank you, Jillio, the experience you have shared has given great insight to many I'm sure, which is the purpose of this exercise. Again,

 

[TXgolfer]

^ AUDIST.

Didn't someone say that you start off with deeply ingrained audism and when you recognize it and still do it, you are considered an audist? She said there's been several times.



I kid. People just need to calm down with the whole "YOURE AN AUDIST" and "HOW AM I AN AUDIST?" stuff.

This is exactly why I hate labels because people spend half of the time trying to tell someone that they are Label X and that accused Label X person spends the other half denying that s/he is not.

WHO CARES? Focus on the ACTIONS and SAYINGS rather than labels.

 

[Banjo]

Why are you arguing otherwise?

Some people are just too dense for their own good. That's all.

 

[BecLak]

Wirelessly posted



that's why i flat out asked. And i will again.

is speechreading enough to learn fluent spoken language (both expressively and receptively) through?

I have been tossing up whether or not to bother responding to this, since you never read my posts the way intended.

You have said that it is impossible to master English both spoken and written just by speechreading, that it is necessary for a child to hear. I have said I learned without HAs and CIs. I used whatever visual method I could since I did not have sign language to fall back on. I taught myself to read. and I have mentioned how I did that too. It is not easy, it is a struggle and it is a continual effort. But for you to suggest that it is not possible to master English that way, since I am proof that it can be done, it is an insult to me and others like me. I would not wish any deaf child/person to have to go through what I had to go through. But to disregard the achievement for which such a price was paid is an insult.

 

[AlleyCat]

I have been tossing up whether or not to bother responding to this, since you never read my posts the way intended.

You have said that it is impossible to master English both spoken and written just by speechreading, that it is necessary for a child to hear. I have said I learned without HAs and CIs. I used whatever visual method I could since I did not have sign language to fall back on. I taught myself to read and I have mentioned how I did that too. It is not easy, it is a struggle and it is a continual effort. But for you to suggest that it is not possible to master English that way, since I am proof that it can be done, it is an insult to me and others like me. I would not wish any deaf child/person to have to go through what I had to go through. But to disregard the achievement for which such a price was paid is an insult.

+1.

 

[jillio]

Right on lady!!!! English is NOT like the Chinese languages where a difference in pitch (how you pronounce the word) turns a baby talk word into a swear or something like that. Speechreading is valid and NOT a crutch. Yes, there's value to auditory training, but it's not a tool you need to use all the time. Even HEARING people speechread! If you think you don't speechread, take a day where you blindfold yourself when you interact verbally with people. You'll see that yes you DO speechread!
Huh? I never got the vibe that Grendel is audist, except for the normal audist feelings that a lot of hearing parents have when they are still coming to terms with their kid as a Deaf person. And yes Grendel, you ARE very accepting and all.....but I do have to say that most hearing parents still have some audist attitudes. I don't mean that as an insult. More like.......Have you read about how in the old days parents were taught if they adopted a forigen kid, the best thing was to try to assimulate them into white mainstream culture, and they didn't "need" stuff like heritage camps?
It does take time to fully come to terms with a child's difference. It took me 18 years to come to terms with being hoh.
Oh, and jillo, I gotta say I don't think that Grendel is defending FJ and rick b/c they are audist. I think its more like she feels like you're criticzing them as parents. You aren't...you really aren't. But it might be taken that way.
Yes indeedy! Dead on.

That's the whole point. She seems to be jumping to their defense simply because they are hearing parents with a deaf child without any understanding of what she is defending. Exactly why I cautioned her about guilt by association.

 

[jillio]

Using the term while saying that I refuse to label people as such and such is NOT labeling.

Riiight.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that speech reading is natural, easy and can provide the entirety of spoken langauge and allow a deaf child to be able to develop fluent spoken language

and

claim that not providing ASL at all times is cruel and will leave a child with profound language deficits.

both can't be true.

Yes, we can, because you are completely distorting, as usual, what is being said.:roll:

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



then when you leave, i will.

There is no comparison between you and I. Not in any form. I am a welcomed guest here in a Deaf forum. That has been confirmed any number of times.

 

[jillio]

she left for several months. you didn't leave.

yeah, she just thought she had more of an opening to spout her BS without me around to correct it!