"hearing ability lost" a problematic phrase?

Calee

Calee

New Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Yesterday I used the phrase "lost hearing ability" to refer to my grandmother who could once hear and is now deaf.

My significant other, who is very passionate about Deaf advocacy, said "You mean, she gained the ability to be deaf. She gained deafness."

This made me very confused and conflicted. I understand where they are coming from and I entirely agree: being deaf is not a bad thing and being hearing is not a good thing. Therefore why would you say that she "lost" an "ability"? This is basically a roundabout way of saying that deafness is a disability, which is clearly problematic.

But ignoring the connotations (which unfortunately we can't do in reality), "losing your ability to hear" just makes so much sense. You have a capacity to do something (an ability) and then you no longer have it (it's lost). And if you put the suggested alternative in similar terms, it makes no sense. You don't have the ability to not hear? And you gain it? You can't gain the lack of something, which is the only way I know to define deafness.

So I'm conflicted because the phrase makes logical sense but its connotations perpetuate a negative perception of deafness. The alternative doesn't make logical sense but it benefits the deaf community.

I'm interested in alternatives but I'm more interested in where y'all fall on this matter. Is what I said wrong? Why?
 
I don't think it is rude or disrespectful but I do find it a weird phase haha. I personally don't think it is a bad thing to lose hearing abilities because that is stating plainly what happened. Maybe if you said lost hearing abilities and gained deafness hahahaha
 
As a late-deafened person I usually say "became deaf". This has neither a loss or gain implication. Simply a change from one state of being to another.
 
Mieke said:
Wouldnt she became Deaf also work?
Click to expand...
zephren said:
As a late-deafened person I usually say "became deaf". This has neither a loss or gain implication. Simply a change from one state of being to another.
Click to expand...

Wow, yeah, that's perfect. How did I not think of that?

But do either of you have thoughts on the original statement?
 
I get sooo discussed with all the "PC" around terms that describe the same thing! It does not matter to me as long as I understand what happened.
 
When people talk about old age hearing loss, I think they normally just say they lost their hearing. Ability isn't needed in that description.

Deaf advocacy for old age hearing loss is silly. They are just hearing people who can't hear anymore. Not going to run out and try to immerse themselves in Deaf culture.
 
You will meet a few people with conflicting ideas who think they know it all. Best to ignore them and move on. I wouldn't let that offend me or make me be so careful what I say next time. I think what you said makes perfect sense and will make sense to most.
 
Bottesini said:
When people talk about old age hearing loss, I think they normally just say they lost their hearing. Ability isn't needed in that description.

Deaf advocacy for old age hearing loss is silly. They are just hearing people who can't hear anymore. Not going to run out and try to immerse themselves in Deaf culture.
Click to expand...

That's an ageist assumption. True, most people with old age hearing loss don't learn to sign or want any part of Deaf culture, including some of my cousins, but not all of us.
 
Back
Top