"Hard of Hearing"

Beach girl said:
Where have I ever questioned that? Sometimes I think you've got me confused with someone else.
Click to expand...

Of course you did in your comments about the old vet who devalues Deaf people.
 
Bottesini said:
Of course you did in your comments about the old vet who devalues Deaf people.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The hearing perspective is so ingrained that she doesn't even realize the impact of her statements or the way they are perceived by the Deaf.
 
Oy. Here we go again.

We have different interpretations of what this late-deafened man was saying. In my opinion, he has a right to HIS opinion of what Lane (who is not deaf himself) was saying. I'm standing up for this man's right to have an opinion about his own life and what happened to him as a result of losing his hearing, which affected his opinion of Lane's article. IMHO, he was not commenting on Deaf Culture or anything broader than his own opinion.

Personally, I've got very little opinion on Lane one way or the other.

The Globe published both Lane's article and this man's short letter in order to generate controversy, and I guess they did.
 
shel90 said:
I was born profoundly deaf and identified myself as hearing impaired growing up because I was taught that way. People treated me as someone who was incapable of not doing much despite my hours and hours spent working on speech skills so I could fit in the hearing world. I found my Deaf identity when I learned ASL at 25 years old and since then, I have abandonded that label. Life has been much easier for me since then which I found very interesting. It was like subconsicously by labeling myself as "hearing impaired" I truly believed that I was defective and as a result, that was the message I portrayed to hearing people hence getting treated as someone not as capable as they were.
Click to expand...

Well written, Shel, I couldn't have written it better myself, as you know I have a very similar experience.
 
Beach girl said:
Oy. Here we go again.

We have different interpretations of what this late-deafened man was saying. In my opinion, he has a right to HIS opinion of what Lane (who is not deaf himself) was saying. I'm standing up for this man's right to have an opinion about his own life and what happened to him as a result of losing his hearing, which affected his opinion of Lane's article. IMHO, he was not commenting on Deaf Culture or anything broader than his own opinion.

Personally, I've got very little opinion on Lane one way or the other.

The Globe published both Lane's article and this man's short letter in order to generate controversy, and I guess they did.
Click to expand...

He has the right to his opinion regarding his experience. However, he does not have the right to belittle Deaf Culture, which, in effect, he has done. Lane does not write about the late deafened that consider themselves to be defective hearing people. He writes about the culturally Deaf. If you don't subscribe to the cultural perspective of deafness, fine. Don't participate. But he, nor anyone else, has the right to belittle the Deaf Culture, or proclaim it non-existent or a plague simply because it does not apply to them. And, if one chooses to do so, be prepared for the wrath that will come one's way as a result.
 
But he, nor anyone else, has the right to belittle the Deaf Culture, or proclaim it non-existent or a plague simply because it does not apply to them.
Click to expand...

Sigh. IMHO, once again, he did not do that. I did not do that.

I'm done with trying to explain this to you; you want to insist that everyone is either your way or the highway. Good luck with that; very few people in this world get universal approbation.
 
Beach girl said:
Sigh. IMHO, once again, he did not do that. I did not do that.

I'm done with trying to explain this to you; you want to insist that everyone is either your way or the highway. Good luck with that; very few people in this world get universal approbation.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't see that he did, or that you did. However, there are many here that are telling you that is exactly what occurred. Like I stated earlier, the breakdown in understanding is the inability, or unwillingness, to see things outside your own perspective and give credence to what the Deaf are saying. Same old audism that has been going on for centuries.
 
Deafness, congenital or otherwise, is a curse.

Deaf Culture does not view deafness as a curse.

To try to beatify this is to argue the untenable.

The concept of Deaf Culture is untenable. Incorrect.

Yes, people talk animatedly to each other in American Sign Language — I watch them on the T. But they can’t communicate with the rest of us.

Ignorance in it's worst form. Assumtption that signing deaf cannot communicate with the non-signing population.




There it is, quoted from his letter. I truly feel sorry that you are unable to see the insult delivered to the Deaf in these words.
 
Jillio, I have noticed that those who are hearing or identify themselves as hearing get into 'hearing-style' debates with all of us. The whole defensive, 'all guns blaring', battle of intellect. Jillio gets hit with most of them because she is hearing but understands and stands for Deaf culture. Have you noticed that Bott and Shel? My my, really shows what perspective they are coming from. BTW, Thanks for covering our back, Jillio. We Deaf, don't have that among our own. The very statement from Beachgirl 'Oy, here we go again' says it all.
 
BecLak said:
Jillio, I have noticed that those who are hearing or identify themselves as hearing get into 'hearing-style' debates with all of us. The whole defensive, 'all guns blaring', battle of intellect. Jillio gets hit with most of them because she is hearing but understands and stands for Deaf culture. Have you noticed that Bott and Shel? My my, really shows what perspective they are coming from. BTW, Thanks for covering our back, Jillio. We Deaf, don't have that among our own. The very statement from Beachgirl 'Oy, here we go again' says it all.
Click to expand...

Never, ever a need to thank me. I stand up for that which I believe in. This culture, and the members of the culture, have enriched my life in more ways than I can ever say; and is my son's life blood. I would be a fool not to defend it and my Deaf friends.
 
Wait till eye implants come out, we'll have hard of sight and the plethora of terms related to it.
Click to expand...


:laugh2: Actually the terminology for someone who's legally blind but who still has some sight is low vision. (or visually impaired)
I like the spoken abbreviaion HOH, rather then the long way of saying "hard of hearing" for someone who is Deaf, but who is a decent hearing aid/CI user.
 
The terms "legally blind" and "legally deaf" make us laugh in the UK. It implies there is such a thing as going illegally blind! So much better (though longer) is "Blind for legal purposes"

We have two legally defined categories just now, VI (used to be parially sighted) and SVI (used to be blind), which is a bother when forms say "Are you registered blind?" and it's impossible to be registered blind any more, you can only be registered Severely Visually Impaired, unless you were registered as blind before the regulations changed. and of course you are no less blind if you have decided not to register as blind. All fun and games.

Incidentally, because the visual cortex doesn't suffer with overloading quite the way the auditory system does, the optical implants are unlikely to be equipped with on and off functions quite the way that CIs are, people don't tend to find themselves overwhelmed because they can see too much the way they do in very noisy environments.
 
RoseRodent said:
The terms "legally blind" and "legally deaf" make us laugh in the UK. It implies there is such a thing as going illegally blind! So much better (though longer) is "Blind for legal purposes"

We have two legally defined categories just now, VI (used to be parially sighted) and SVI (used to be blind), which is a bother when forms say "Are you registered blind?" and it's impossible to be registered blind any more, you can only be registered Severely Visually Impaired, unless you were registered as blind before the regulations changed. and of course you are no less blind if you have decided not to register as blind.
Click to expand...
:shock: pc gone mad
 
I've been told by some of the Deaf that since I'm not Deaf I should call myself "hard of hearing". But I tell them I'm not really "functioning hard of hearing". For instance, I cannot use the phone (i.e. although I hope to change it in the near future). So I sometime use the term "hearing impaired" as an "in between". Yes, I know that some of the Deaf don't like that term. Thus no need to repeat it in here.
 
I think phone usage is probably the line between deaf and hearing loss. If one cannot understand speech on a phone with CI, or HA, or amplification, then that is not just hearing loss.
 
RoseRodent said:
The terms "legally blind" and "legally deaf" make us laugh in the UK. It implies there is such a thing as going illegally blind! So much better (though longer) is "Blind for legal purposes"

We have two legally defined categories just now, VI (used to be parially sighted) and SVI (used to be blind), which is a bother when forms say "Are you registered blind?" and it's impossible to be registered blind any more, you can only be registered Severely Visually Impaired, unless you were registered as blind before the regulations changed. and of course you are no less blind if you have decided not to register as blind. All fun and games.

Incidentally, because the visual cortex doesn't suffer with overloading quite the way the auditory system does, the optical implants are unlikely to be equipped with on and off functions quite the way that CIs are, people don't tend to find themselves overwhelmed because they can see too much the way they do in very noisy environments.
Click to expand...

:laugh2: I'm not in the UK, but that cracked me up, too.
 
MCB said:
I think phone usage is probably the line between deaf and hearing loss. If one cannot understand speech on a phone with CI, or HA, or amplification, then that is not just hearing loss.
Click to expand...

If the HOH can not understand speech over the phone, then the HOH is consider as deaf. If the HOH can understand speech on the phone or have no trouble understanding strangers, then that would make HOH as Hard of Hearing. It has nothing to do with hearing loss. There is a different degrees of hearing losses like Mild, Moderate, Severe and Profound. :cool2:
 
Bebonang said:
If the HOH can not understand speech over the phone, then the HOH is consider as deaf. If the HOH can understand speech on the phone or have no trouble understanding strangers, then that would make HOH as Hard of Hearing. It has nothing to do with hearing loss. There is a different degrees of hearing losses like Mild, Moderate, Severe and Profound. :cool2:
Click to expand...
When you said "no trouble understanding strangers", did you also mean "no trouble understanding strangers over the phone"?
 
Back
Top