Letter: Don't use term 'hearing-impaired'

Beowulf said:
From reading all the posts, one would gather that deaf people are insecure about their hearing loss. I personally do not know any deaf person who feels that way. Ah well.
Click to expand...

Yeah....I don't get it. It's just words. Sticks and stones....I always say
 
I really don't like the word hearing impaired cos of how hearing people view that word. Also it sounds much too like that you used have hearing and somehow you lost it and becomes impaired.

I am Deaf or deaf, I would even accept Hard of Hearing if anyone wrote it down in form but no one ever call me that cos I am too Deaf. Never hearing impaired, ever.
 
Speedy Hawk said:
I really don't like the word hearing impaired cos of how hearing people view that word. Also it sounds much too like that you used have hearing and somehow you lost it and becomes impaired.

I am Deaf or deaf, I would even accept Hard of Hearing if anyone wrote it down in form but no one ever call me that cos I am too Deaf. Never hearing impaired, ever.
Click to expand...

They'd have to be mentally challenged to take on us hearing challenged folk, eh?
 
I do understand and respect that the term 'hearing-impaired' is generally considered offensive, so I don't typically use it. In my personal case, it's fairly accurate, because otosclerosis is impairing my formerly normal hearing, but I see how it can be offensive, especially if you have always been deaf/Deaf.

If I need to, I usually just tell a person or people that 'I have some hearing loss'. That about sums it up for me!
 
I always cringe at the term "hearing impaired," and I did long before I joined this site, learned ASL, or began understanding Deaf identity.

The main reason I don't like it is because it has the classification of subordinate built right into it. It is a term based on negation. You take a word with a normal implication, "hearing" and negate it. So if I am "hearing impaired," I am subordinate to a hearing person, with no possibility for a different definition. I am simply defined by what I don't have.

The term "deaf" is unique and has its own identity and meaning. It does not derive its meaning by negating a "normal" word. Sure, by definition "deaf" means "unable to hear," but at least it is not created by taking a normal word and attaching a negation to it.
 
As usual, theWriteAlex, summarizes it beautifully!

How do u do it, Alex? Lol
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I always cringe at the term "hearing impaired," and I did long before I joined this site, learned ASL, or began understanding Deaf identity.

The main reason I don't like it is because it has the classification of subordinate built right into it. It is a term based on negation. You take a word with a normal implication, "hearing" and negate it. So if I am "hearing impaired," I am subordinate to a hearing person, with no possibility for a different definition. I am simply defined by what I don't have.

The term "deaf" is unique and has its own identity and meaning. It does not derive its meaning by negating a "normal" word. Sure, by definition "deaf" means "unable to hear," but at least it is not created by taking a normal word and attaching a negation to it.
Click to expand...

you little man..... no wonder you want to major in English. You wanted to make euphemisms to make yourself look bigger and important.
 
Still, it doesn't bother me. Hearing impairment. Hearing impaired. Hard of hearing. I mean, really, not gonna let those words bother me. Sticks and stones... ya know?
 
kokonut said:
Still, it doesn't bother me. Hearing impairment. Hearing impaired. Hard of hearing. I mean, really, not gonna let those words bother me. Sticks and stones... ya know?
Click to expand...

the fact that you mentioned this TWICE implies that it has bothered you in the past :aw:
 
Technically speaking, hard-of-hearing makes no sense. Neither does hard-of seeing.
 
kokonut said:
Still, it doesn't bother me. Hearing impairment. Hearing impaired. Hard of hearing. I mean, really, not gonna let those words bother me. Sticks and stones... ya know?
Click to expand...

Okayyy...we already know that and nobody has argued with you about it.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I always cringe at the term "hearing impaired," and I did long before I joined this site, learned ASL, or began understanding Deaf identity.

The main reason I don't like it is because it has the classification of subordinate built right into it. It is a term based on negation. You take a word with a normal implication, "hearing" and negate it. So if I am "hearing impaired," I am subordinate to a hearing person, with no possibility for a different definition. I am simply defined by what I don't have.

The term "deaf" is unique and has its own identity and meaning. It does not derive its meaning by negating a "normal" word. Sure, by definition "deaf" means "unable to hear," but at least it is not created by taking a normal word and attaching a negation to it.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but some people cringe at the term "mentally challenged" because it implies a different state of mind than the one they are in. So, we cannot define ourselves as "auditorially challenged?" Now, I am not even sure if that is a real word. I'm confused. :aw:
 
kokonut said:
Still, it doesn't bother me. Hearing impairment. Hearing impaired. Hard of hearing. I mean, really, not gonna let those words bother me. Sticks and stones... ya know?
Click to expand...

That's ok. when I meet someone, I'll use the term "hearing impaired" when referring to you. "This is Kokonut, he's hearing impaired"

as long as you refer me as deaf.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I always cringe at the term "hearing impaired," and I did long before I joined this site, learned ASL, or began understanding Deaf identity.

The main reason I don't like it is because it has the classification of subordinate built right into it. It is a term based on negation. You take a word with a normal implication, "hearing" and negate it. So if I am "hearing impaired," I am subordinate to a hearing person, with no possibility for a different definition. I am simply defined by what I don't have.

The term "deaf" is unique and has its own identity and meaning. It does not derive its meaning by negating a "normal" word. Sure, by definition "deaf" means "unable to hear," but at least it is not created by taking a normal word and attaching a negation to it.
Click to expand...



"deaf" is really unique and means "unable to hear", whether a person is deaf or hard of hearing. The important thing is that we are part of Deaf Culture if we are in the Deaf Culture with ASL. I would not want to be label as "hearing-impaired" as it is insulted to the Deaf Culture, period.

If the hard of hearing person are not interest in ASL or not interest in the Deaf Culture, then that is hard for them to understand where they are coming from. No wonder the word "hard" is just a depressing word when it is hard for them to hear as mild to moderate hearing loss and also hard for them not to understand our Deaf Culture too. Oh, well, that is the way everyone can decide for themselves whatever they like to be label. For me, I would like to be label as DEAF as I am in the Deaf Culture. :cool2:
 
Beowulf said:
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but some people cringe at the term "mentally challenged" because it implies a different state of mind than the one they are in. So, we cannot define ourselves as "auditorially challenged?" Now, I am not even sure if that is a real word. I'm confused. :aw:
Click to expand...

I'll just let the person tell us how he prefer it.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I always cringe at the term "hearing impaired," and I did long before I joined this site, learned ASL, or began understanding Deaf identity.

The main reason I don't like it is because it has the classification of subordinate built right into it. It is a term based on negation. You take a word with a normal implication, "hearing" and negate it. So if I am "hearing impaired," I am subordinate to a hearing person, with no possibility for a different definition. I am simply defined by what I don't have.

The term "deaf" is unique and has its own identity and meaning. It does not derive its meaning by negating a "normal" word. Sure, by definition "deaf" means "unable to hear," but at least it is not created by taking a normal word and attaching a negation to it.
Click to expand...

I see it exactly the opposite (of course)

When some one asks "are you deaf?" That would seem to ask "is there something wrong with you"

Where as

If someone asked "are you hearing impaired?" or "do you have a hearing impairment?" that would seem to ask if there is something wrong with your hearing. A small part of who you are.

That's just me. Personally as I said before none of the terms would bother me.
 
deafgal001 said:
That's ok. when I meet someone, I'll use the term "hearing impaired" when referring to you. "This is Kokonut, he's hearing impaired"

as long as you refer me as deaf.
Click to expand...

I'll just say, "She can't hear a whit."
 
Back
Top