Formerly deaf piano teacher will play during a concert Sunday in Stillwater

jillio said:
If "formerly deaf" is not misleading about deaf people, then who is it misleading about? Hearing people? Blind people? People with MS?:roll:
Click to expand...

Jesus told me to get glasses. I am cured!

(Just realized the first sentence is more an inside joke, PM me for explanation.)
 
Um wow!! Really???

Seriously.... The article title could be better. I am sure the editor had no intentions to offend the deaf culture or have any clue that he may have.

In all honesty, I think it is great the lady got her CIs to help her enjoy her music again.
 
Babyblue said:
Um wow!! Really???

Seriously.... The article title could be better. I am sure the editor had no intentions to offend the deaf culture or have any clue that he may have.

In all honesty, I think it is great the lady got her CIs to help her enjoy her music again.
Click to expand...

I think it's great that any deaf can enjoy music with hearing aids as well, but you won't see them being called "formerly deaf."
 
Babyblue said:
Um wow!! Really???

Seriously.... The article title could be better. I am sure the editor had no intentions to offend the deaf culture or have any clue that he may have.

In all honesty, I think it is great the lady got her CIs to help her enjoy her music again.
Click to expand...

I think everyone does. The whole point was the audist language in the title, and the point that those who write about deaf issues should have taken the time to inform themselves of about deaf issues. Until we start pointing out the audist things we see every day, and bringing people's attention to them, they will continue to spread audism without even realizing what they are doing.
 
jillio said:
I think everyone does. The whole point was the audist language in the title, and the point that those who write about deaf issues should have taken the time to inform themselves of about deaf issues. Until we start pointing out the audist things we see every day, and bringing people's attention to them, they will continue to spread audism without even realizing what they are doing.
Click to expand...



I bet you a million bucks that editor has no idea what the term Audist means. I wonder how many people on this thread that are griping about this, wrote to that editor to let him/her know that he/she offended some D/deaf people, and is willing to explain to him/her what Audist is.
 
Babyblue said:
I bet you a million bucks that editor has no idea what the term Audist means. I wonder how many people on this thread that are griping about this, wrote to that editor to let him/her know that he/she offended some D/deaf people, and is willing to explain to him/her what Audist is.
Click to expand...

**jillio's head hanging** Guilty. But I will do that now. I just got busy defending my position on the wording when a couple of people tried to make it something it wasn't.

But I am ashamed of myself, because it is my habit to walk the walk. So I will correct my error.
 
jillio said:
**jillio's head hanging** Guilty. But I will do that now. I just got busy defending my position on the wording when a couple of people tried to make it something it wasn't.

But I am ashamed of myself, because it is my habit to walk the walk. So I will correct my error.
Click to expand...

That's mah gurl!! :ily:
 
Do let me know how it goes? and perhaps you can post a link where the others can write to the editor too. :)
 
A copy of the email I just sent:

Your article referenced above was shared with a website dedicated to deaf individuals and, as a result, something needs to be brought to your attention. I am certain that the wording was not intended to be offensive toward the Deaf community; however, the audist implications were evident to those of us that are familiar with deafness and its psychosocial consequences.

There is no such thing as a “formerly deaf” individual. Even with the latest technology, one who is deaf remains deaf. One can be formerly hearing; one cannot be formerly deaf. While this individual now has an assistive device that she obviously enjoys, the wording of your title implies that a CI cures deafness. For those of us that work very hard to keep this message from becoming accepted as true, your title was objectionable.

Children are still suffering educational consequences and language deprivation because there are still those that have the mistaken belief that CI somehow cures deafness, and with a CI, a deaf individual magically becomes hearing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no problem with the article, I do, however, have a problem with the wording “formerly deaf.”

As stated, I am sure this was simply the result of ignorance, but would request that, in the future, when writing about issues that affect the deaf, your reporters take the time to research the deaf and the way audist language creates negative perceptions.


I will also post any reply I receive.:wave:
 
dogmom said:
peaceful :wave:not debating...
Click to expand...

Simply was curious since you seem to say that the main point of the article wasn't about the woman who finally can now enjoy her music and sound. But that's me which is why I asked. :wave:
 
kokonut said:
Simply was curious since you seem to say that the main point of the article wasn't about the woman who finally can now enjoy her music and sound. But that's me which is why I asked. :wave:
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing the main point of the article and the main point of this thread.:roll: dogmom was referring to the point being made in the thread.
 
Back
Top