CI--Deaf or Hearing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
She has spoken for herself, and has said that SEE is a language.
 
jillio said:
She has spoken for herself, and has said that SEE is a language.
Click to expand...

I see her saying something different, that SEE is the system she uses to support the use of English with her child.

CSign said:
ASL is a complete language.
English (visually supported with Signing Exact English) is a complete language.
PSE/CASE is not a complete language.
Click to expand...
 
AOS said:
I had read that there are those in the deaf community that ostracize ppl with Cis. This info came from a CI mfg. It did note that it didnt necessarily apply to late-deafened as these ppl were not saying 1 community is better then the other, simply they ppl are naturally comfortable using the tools they were most familiar with.

I am late deafened as of a few yrs ago. I am trying to find out why I am considered disabled? My balance is off and that is a disability in my opinion but not hearing has opened up so much to me. I can see things I did not see before. Other senses are heightened and amaze me YAY ME!

My toolbox is empty atm but not for long! :) Whether it be Ci's or ASL with lip reading, I KNOW what I CAN do and have to offer others. Some are not open- minded to finding out. That is on them. We are who we believe we are and....hmm our own personal perceptions are the right ones..

The deaf community is a proud community. In the few years I have been deaf, I completely understand why the deaf community is so proud and no matter what my future holds, I shall embrace being deaf or HOH
Click to expand...

Wow............. The statement I put in bold above.. I'm offended.
 
:wave: AOS! Ugh. Seems to me that saying such a thing, that people getting their product will be ostracized, isn't a strong selling point :dunno:. What was the context? Was this on an ad, or a web page? Or one of the forums?

AOS said:
I had read that there are those in the deaf community that ostracize ppl with Cis. This info came from a CI mfg. It did note that it didnt necessarily apply to late-deafened as these ppl were not saying 1 community is better then the other, simply they ppl are naturally comfortable using the tools they were most familiar with.

I am late deafened as of a few yrs ago. I am trying to find out why I am considered disabled? My balance is off and that is a disability in my opinion but not hearing has opened up so much to me. I can see things I did not see before. Other senses are heightened and amaze me YAY ME!

My toolbox is empty atm but not for long! :) Whether it be Ci's or ASL with lip reading, I KNOW what I CAN do and have to offer others. Some are not open- minded to finding out. That is on them. We are who we believe we are and....hmm our own personal perceptions are the right ones..

The deaf community is a proud community. In the few years I have been deaf, I completely understand why the deaf community is so proud and no matter what my future holds, I shall embrace being deaf or HOH
Click to expand...
 
AOS said:
I had read that there are those in the deaf community that ostracize ppl with Cis. This info came from a CI mfg. It did note that it didnt necessarily apply to late-deafened as these ppl were not saying 1 community is better then the other, simply they ppl are naturally comfortable using the tools they were most familiar with.

I am late deafened as of a few yrs ago. I am trying to find out why I am considered disabled? My balance is off and that is a disability in my opinion but not hearing has opened up so much to me. I can see things I did not see before. Other senses are heightened and amaze me YAY ME!

My toolbox is empty atm but not for long! :) Whether it be Ci's or ASL with lip reading, I KNOW what I CAN do and have to offer others. Some are not open- minded to finding out. That is on them. We are who we believe we are and....hmm our own personal perceptions are the right ones..

The deaf community is a proud community. In the few years I have been deaf, I completely understand why the deaf community is so proud and no matter what my future holds, I shall embrace being deaf or HOH
Click to expand...
wow i am surprised! sound great impressive community! It is very good keep on community grow!!
 
GrendelQ said:
I think she keeps saying that English is a language, and she's using SEE to support her child's use of English -- not that SEE is a separate language in of itself.
Click to expand...

No, she said SEE is a language.
 
Cheetah said:
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'm almost sad I asked the question. There is some really intense reading on that site.

The one article I picked to read completely did not answer any questions at all and raised a whole bunch of new questions. Sigh. It's almost like the author is pointing out all the faults of all of the methods and making no attempt to claim one is superior or provide solutions. However the author does acknowledge the overwhelming desire of the Deaf community to use ASL as the teaching method to learn to read/write English.

Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students: considering the claims.

Here is the article I just read... maybe you will get more out of it than I did.
Click to expand...

I'm going to make another recommendation for you. You seem to be interested in this and have shown that you are capable of evaluating and understanding research reports.

There is a book called Psychology of Deafness that contains the results of various cognitive assessments in various domains. They explain quite a bit about the way the deaf brain processes incoming stimuli. Once you know how the brain processes this information, you can extrapolate as to why it should be presented in a specific format to achieve the best results.
 
shel90 said:
No, she said SEE is a language.
Click to expand...

Yes, she did, and you and I are not the only ones to have seen it.

This is just another case of the hearing and the hearing think believing they have to support each other even when they are spreading misinformation that hurts deaf children in the longrun. Seems to me the priority is skewed.
 
shel90 said:
No, she said SEE is a language.
Click to expand...

I did say that in the title of the thread, and within the first page or two conceded that SEE itself is not a language, but another mode of the English language. That was one of my points. It doesn't matter to me that SEE is not considered a language.

It's all there "in black and white" as is my support of ASL.
 
Last edited:
CSign said:
I did say that in the title of the thread, and within the first page or two conceded that SEE itself is not a language, but another mode of the English language. That was one of my points. It doesn't matter to me that SEE is not considered a language.

It's all there "in black and white" as is my support of ASL.
Click to expand...

but SEE is not ASL or vice versa. It's 2 different sign languages. If you support ASL, then why not use ASL? :dunno:
 
CSign said:
I did say that in the title of the thread, and within the first page or two conceded that SEE itself is not a language, but another mode of the English language. That was one of my points. It doesn't matter to me that SEE is not considered a language.

It's all there "in black and white" as is my support of ASL.
Click to expand...

If you are so supportive of ASL, why is it that you choose to not use it, and instead choose to use an MCE? What you say and what you do are incongruent.
 
Jiro said:
it's not about us.... it's about your view on choice of sign languages for your deaf son.
Click to expand...

My son is not profoundly deaf. He has a severe bilateral hearing loss, and with his HA's has pretty good residual hearing. I have made a point to make the language he is surrounded by on a regular basis to be accessible to him. He has achieved fluency in English (of course there is still more for him to learn), and SEE was a part of that. I am not on this board telling everyone they should use SEE. I simply stated in that thread that it had been an effective tool for my son.

If my son were profoundly deaf, or had little residual hearing our course of action likely would have been different. As I mentioned in the thread, it was always in the master plan to ultimately transition to ASL. SEE absolutely served it's purpose in providing my child access to a language that otherwise wouldn't always be entirely accessible to him.

There is not an Audist bone in my body. There are one or two here who like to scream from the mountain tops that I'm Audist because I chose to help my son acquire English. They are delusional and paranoid. I accept and love my son exactly the way he is. I feel like his hearing loss was a blessing, because without it I probably would have never been exposed to the world that was opened up for me. For that I'm grateful. I'm able to advocate for my son, and help other families advocate for their children. This was one of the greatest gifts I could have received.
 
CSign - feel free to correct me. I'm assuming that you have decided to choose SEE despite of what you hear from us about SEE but you feel that it is best for your deaf son to have a solid foundation in English especially written and reading. and at same time - you know that he'll eventually know ASL later on so it's not a problem for now as long as he won't be writing in bad English?

is this why you're very adamant with your choice?
 
CSign said:
My son is not profoundly deaf. He has a severe bilateral hearing loss, and with his HA's has pretty good residual hearing. I have made a point to make the language he is surrounded by on a regular basis to be accessible to him. He has achieved fluency in English (of course there is still more for him to learn), and SEE was a part of that. I am not on this board telling everyone they should use SEE. I simply stated in that thread that it had been an effective tool for my son.

If my son were profoundly deaf, or had little residual hearing our course of action likely would have been different. As I mentioned in the thread, it was always in the master plan to ultimately transition to ASL. SEE absolutely served it's purpose in providing my child access to a language that otherwise wouldn't always be entirely accessible to him.

There is not an Audist bone in my body. There are one or two here who like to scream from the mountain tops that I'm Audist because I chose to help my son acquire English. They are delusional and paranoid. I accept and love my son exactly the way he is. I feel like his hearing loss was a blessing, because without it I probably would have never been exposed to the world that was opened up for me. For that I'm grateful. I'm able to advocate for my son, and help other families advocate for their children. This was one of the greatest gifts I could have received.
Click to expand...

ah! now I understand your situation much better now. that pretty much answered my question in my previous post. :ty:

I can see why your position has generated a great deal of controversy but hey... if it works out fine for your son, cool. However, I do definitely see others' POV on this issue and it's the route I would choose for my deaf child - the BiBi program.
 
CSign said:
My son is not profoundly deaf. He has a severe bilateral hearing loss, and with his HA's has pretty good residual hearing. I have made a point to make the language he is surrounded by on a regular basis to be accessible to him. He has achieved fluency in English (of course there is still more for him to learn), and SEE was a part of that. I am not on this board telling everyone they should use SEE. I simply stated in that thread that it had been an effective tool for my son.

If my son were profoundly deaf, or had little residual hearing our course of action likely would have been different. As I mentioned in the thread, it was always in the master plan to ultimately transition to ASL. SEE absolutely served it's purpose in providing my child access to a language that otherwise wouldn't always be entirely accessible to him.

There is not an Audist bone in my body. There are one or two here who like to scream from the mountain tops that I'm Audist because I chose to help my son acquire English. They are delusional and paranoid. I accept and love my son exactly the way he is. I feel like his hearing loss was a blessing, because without it I probably would have never been exposed to the world that was opened up for me. For that I'm grateful. I'm able to advocate for my son, and help other families advocate for their children. This was one of the greatest gifts I could have received.
Click to expand...

Effective tool for what? "Pretty good" residual hearing? What exactly does that mean? If he was profoundly deaf? So the profoundly deaf are the only ones that benefit from ASL?

Your entire skeletal system is audist. You simply are so ignorant of what audism actually is and the ways that it manifests that you can't recognize it in yourself. We call that deluding oneself.:cool2:

We don't claim that you are audist because you helped your son use English, but nice attempt to twist and turn. You have given us numerous reasons to see that you are definately audist.
 
Jiro said:
ah! now I understand your situation much better now. that pretty much answered my question in my previous post. :ty:

I can see why your position has generated a great deal of controversy but hey... if it works out fine for your son, cool. However, I do definitely see others' POV on this issue and it's the route I would choose for my deaf child - the BiBi program.
Click to expand...

It is the route that anyone who is informed regarding the consequences of language delay and deprivation, the problems with never being able to use the only language a deaf child has to fluency, and the psycho-social impact of deafness would choose. Especially if they put the child's needs as the first priority.
 
CSign said:
My son is not profoundly deaf. He has a severe bilateral hearing loss, and with his HA's has pretty good residual hearing. I have made a point to make the language he is surrounded by on a regular basis to be accessible to him. He has achieved fluency in English (of course there is still more for him to learn), and SEE was a part of that. I am not on this board telling everyone they should use SEE. I simply stated in that thread that it had been an effective tool for my son.

If my son were profoundly deaf, or had little residual hearing our course of action likely would have been different. As I mentioned in the thread, it was always in the master plan to ultimately transition to ASL. SEE absolutely served it's purpose in providing my child access to a language that otherwise wouldn't always be entirely accessible to him.

There is not an Audist bone in my body. There are one or two here who like to scream from the mountain tops that I'm Audist because I chose to help my son acquire English. They are delusional and paranoid. I accept and love my son exactly the way he is. I feel like his hearing loss was a blessing, because without it I probably would have never been exposed to the world that was opened up for me. For that I'm grateful. I'm able to advocate for my son, and help other families advocate for their children. This was one of the greatest gifts I could have received.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but that doesnt make sense at all. So, are you saying that only those who are profound deaf are the only ones who benefit from ASL?

My hearing son's first language was ASL. ASL is accessible to anyone regardless of what degree of hearing loss they have.

Just sounds kinda snobbish to me somewhat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top