I have been reading here, too and was just doing that since I didn't think it was for me to write in, but I am agreeing with everyone here. If I could come in - this is my thought - I think it is a superiority thing - as in mis-perception that speech is "better than" signing. That signing <Allegedly> is not as complex as speech, is of somehow "lower" level :roll:; is not good enough in itself but is okay to be used as means to acquire speech only. Also has to do with peoples' mistakenly interchanging speech and language, that speech is necessary for language. I remember times as young child not being understood or not understanding certain things, going to speech therapy - yes for different reasons than what a deaf child goes for. And I remember how isolating it was because the speech therapy was in different section of school and playground, with its own play equipment, own buses, own doors - it was where they "stuck" all "those" kids.
But about audism - like any 'ism - IT is what "disables" or "handicaps". NOT ASL. Not Deaf.
for reading, if you did-
