Which Choices of Communication should Hearing parents use for their implanted child?

[deafdyke]

Um jag, you miss my point. I am NOT demeaning MR folks when I use the term "wittle Smashlie"...................I have NO idea where you even got that from! "Wittle Smashlie" is more a commentary on the type of parents who raise "designer" high acheiving kids. That's all.

No mechanic in his right mind would take a full toolbox with him/her. That's too heavy, and not-nessasary. He/she will take the tools needed for the job...

Not a good metaphor Cloggy. The mechanic has ACCESS to a full toolbox, and has the training on how to use the tools. Whereas someone who is oral only trained does NOT have access to a full toolbox.
As for the language debate....................Oh come on! What is so wrong with saying "I'm deaf/hoh/CI? Its an IDENTITY, and not nessarily a bad one.
It's like identifying yourself as black or Asian or whatever.

 

[jillio]

Yes, you are right... it sounds like sign is the last thing to use.
I'm sorry that you haven't noticed that I have mentioned that sign-language should be used for the first communication. My mistake that you don't read well. (Or isn't it..?)

Jillio,
Please refer from saying "CI kids". They are children with CI. CI is not what defines them. Far from that.
So that is how you look at those children.! The CI first, and don't think of the child...


Oh, and about "looking down on sign"... is not taught. You really are stirring up the pot.
The problem might be that hearing parents don't think about sign. But to automatically assume the look down upon it.That's a sad statement.. and a wrong one...

But, just to clarify:
I don't think speech is better than sign,
I do not look down on sign,
Lotte is a child with Ci, not a CI-child
Anything else to clarify?

No, cloggy, it is you that assumes the CI places a child into a special category that is totally spearate from any other. You have so stated a number of times.

Regarding the use of sign as a last resort....those are your words. You are the one that made the statement. And in that statement is the connotation that speech is preferable and sign is only to be used as a last resort. They're your words. You are responsible for what they imply, not me.

No, I didn't miss that you said sign should be used for first communication, nor did I miss your underlying implication that it is to be used as 1st communication untilt he child is implanted, and then used no more unless oral communication fails and only as a last resort. Have you missed the obvious and glaring assertion that consistent use is necessary for benefit to occur?

If hearing parents don't think about it, obviously it is not within their list of top 10 ways to communicate. Lowered status, lowered value. Come on, cloggy, I know you are capable of logical thought.

 

[jillio]

No mechanic in his right mind would take a full toolbox with him/her. That's too heavy, and not-nessasary. He/she will take the tools needed for the job...

Perhaps THAT is what these parents do!

And what happens when you don't have the tool you need?

 

[jillio]

It's up to you, but it is all within context.....
"Listen" to this:

Lotte is a CI-kid - vs - Lotte is a kid with CI

Lotte is a CI-child - vs - Lotte is a child with CI

Do you feel the difference?

Isn't that interesting? Now you are using my arguments as your own in regard to the use of "handicapped." So, you are finally beginning to learn.

 

[jillio]

Jillio did not say CI Lottie, she said CI kids so don't try to twist it around ....

Thanks, angel, but the fact of the matter is that cloggy is attempting to use the arguments I used in objecting to referring to an individual as "handicapped". I guess its supposed to work when he uses it, but when others use it, he objects. Go figure!

And he is also referrring to my relply where I requested that he not refer to a child as "it". That is certainly a more objectionalbe and depersonalizing term than CI kid.

 

[jillio]

It's Lotte.... but I guess it's the first time you read the name... After all, it's the first time I mention her ...

Lotte is a deaf child. She's a deaf child with CI. Not a deaf CI-child!

And do you also, cloggy, see the difference between referring to a child as he/she and "it"? Remember, that was your reference, and my request not to refer to a child as "it" is where you got the idea regarding this post. Do you also remember your reference to deaf children being "handicapped", rather than stating that they were children with handicaps, and how you were corrected onthat one? It's nice to see that you are learning and demonstrating knowledge of your new found proficiency with the English language. But now you are attempting to teach the teacher.

 

[Angel]

Ahh yeah I remember that post, I must have forgotten, Thank you Jillio for clear this up...Honestly I didn't have such a great day today anyways ...

 

[Tousi]

Ahh yeah I remember that post, I must have forgotten, Thank you Jillio for clear this up...Honestly I didn't have such a great day today anyways ...

Aww, that's too bad, Angel, there are many happy days ahead for you. But you already know that.....

 

[Cloggy]

No, cloggy, it is you that assumes the CI places a child into a special category that is totally spearate from any other. You have so stated a number of times.

Ah really.... I noticed you refrain from showing anyone where I said that....
So please... where have I said that a child with CI falls into a special category / totally separate from any other?? She's no more special than your son.

 

[Cloggy]

................
Regarding the use of sign as a last resort....those are your words. You are the one that made the statement. And in that statement is the connotation that speech is preferable and sign is only to be used as a last resort. They're your words. You are responsible for what they imply, not me.

No, I didn't miss that you said sign should be used for first communication, nor did I miss your underlying implication that it is to be used as 1st communication untilt he child is implanted, and then used no more unless oral communication fails and only as a last resort. Have you missed the obvious and glaring assertion that consistent use is necessary for benefit to occur?

If hearing parents don't think about it, obviously it is not within their list of top 10 ways to communicate. Lowered status, lowered value.

Why all these false statements Jillio.?? Normally I would think someone is mistaken, but in your case, you are just putting down incorrect statements about persons in order to paint them black...

Show me where I said that sign has to be used until the child is implanted.

................Come on, cloggy, I know you are capable of logical thought.

Finally... you got something right.

 

[Cloggy]

And do you also, cloggy, see the difference between referring to a child as he/she and "it"? Remember, that was your reference, and my request not to refer to a child as "it" is where you got the idea regarding this post.

No the idea is there all along. That's how me and my wife refer to children with CI. Or Lotte.
But your "it" remark did bring it up...

Do you also remember your reference to deaf children being "handicapped", rather than stating that they were children with handicaps, and how you were corrected onthat one?

Corrected... no....

About handicapped:

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

handicap
n 1: the condition of being unable to perform as a consequence of
physical or mental unfitness; "reading disability";
"hearing impairment" [syn: disability, disablement, impairment]
................

Deaf people ARE handicapped.
Your son is handicapped, my daughter is handicapped. They are deaf.
I'm sure you have a better definition... looking forward to it.

But to you, "handicapped" is a bad word. You don't like that label on him... Why is that. Insecurity?
You said.. "He can do more than a hearing person." and that was for you a reason to reject the label "handicapped". As if performance has anything to do with being handicapped.
Your son is handicapped. He might do well in all kind of area's, he cannot use a cellphone because he's deaf. He cannot understand you when he is in another room than you, because he's deaf. It's a handicap. So what.

Now, does he allow his handicap, his deafness, to rule his world. No. He can do most of the things other people can do. Excellent!. And that what he cannot do he will either find a way around it, or it is considered "not important"

It's nice to see that you are learning and demonstrating knowledge of your new found proficiency with the English language. But now you are attempting to teach the teacher.

Condecending... not surprising...
New-found... did anything change in my English?
Teacher.... and that is you...
You are really full of yourself.. Actually... that makes sense...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

check this link

Terminology Tips
Fact Sheet

 

[Cloggy]

check this link

Terminology Tips
Fact Sheet

Thanks,
It showed my point:

Affirmative Phrases Negative Phrases
person with an intellectual, cognitive, developmental disability - retarded; mentally defective
person who is blind, person who is visually impaired - the blind
person with a disability - the disabled; handicapped
person who is deaf - the deaf; deaf and dumb
person who is hard of hearing - suffers a hearing loss
person who has multiple sclerosis - afflicted by MS
person with cerebral palsy - CP victim

Child with CI - CI-child

And I noticed "person with a disability the disabled; handicapped"..
So sure. My daughter and Jillio's son have a disability...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

But Cloggy,

To claim that deaf, Deaf or HOH person is handicapped is an ignorant thing to say.

deaf/HOH itself is disablity due lack of hear the sound... but person with a disabilty do not consider themselves as handicapped.

Example:

Would you consider the people from other countries to visit your country as a handicapped due their lack of Norweigan or Dutch's language or they can't work with you in your country due lack of your own tongue language?

We are trying to tell you that our deaf/hoh itself are disablity due lack of hearing, we are unable to go war, solider, phone operator, etc. It's the same with language disabilty...

I am sure that someone would not like if I consider them as a handicapped due their lack of knowledge/social skill.

If Jillo name your daughter, then she would not say CI-Lotte or deaf Lotte... but CI kids in general way... like deaf or hearing children... HA/CI children/user

 

[Cheri]

Child with CI - CI-child...

How is that the same as person with cerebral palsy - CP victim
If you noticed at the end where it says "victim"

It's not the same as saying "child"

I always use the terms of deaf children, hearing children, cochlear implant children. I don't see that as an offensive term of words.

I do have to agree with Liebling, Angel, Jillio and Maria.

 

[Cloggy]

But Cloggy,

To claim that deaf, Deaf or HOH person is handicapped is an ignorant thing to say.

deaf/HOH itself is disablity due lack of hear the sound... but person with a disabilty do not consider themselves as handicapped.

Example:

Would you consider the people from other countries to visit your country as a handicapped due their lack of Norweigan or Dutch's language or they can't work with you in your country due lack of your own tongue language?

We are trying to tell you that our deaf/hoh itself are disablity due lack of hearing, we are unable to go war, solider, phone operator, etc. It's the same with language disabilty...

I am sure that someone would not like if I consider them as a handicapped due their lack of knowledge/social skill.

If Jillo name your daughter, then she would not say CI-Lotte or deaf Lotte... but CI kids in general way... like deaf or hearing children... HA/CI children/user

The key phrase is - "Do not consider themself handicapped."

handicap
n 1: the condition of being unable to perform as a consequence of
physical or mental unfitness

Not speaking a language is not considered handicapped. You could of course argue that not speaking another language is "mental unfitness".

And of course does a handicap not mean that you cannot do anything. In general, people with a handicap can do almost anything. Just like people without a handicap can do almost anything.
The difference is that people with a handicap cannot do some things because of "physical or mental unfitness".
(There are plenty of people that are not handicapped that cannot do anything..)

Anyway,
I don't see deaf people as handicapped, I don't see Lotte as handicapped, nor Jillio's son. However, I do know Lotte is handicapped....
It's just a definition. Except... it is highly charged..

Tell me - do you consider blind people handicapped?
Do you consider a person in a wheelchair handicapped?
Do you consider retarted people handicapped?

 

[Cloggy]

How is that the same as person with cerebral palsy - CP victim
If you noticed at the end where it says "victim"

It's not the same as saying "child"

I always use the terms of deaf children, hearing children, cochlear implant children. I don't see that as an offensive term of words.

I do have to agree with Liebling, Angel, Jillio and Maria.

Why am I not surprised...

My wife and I discussed this, and the feeling is that when you say "CI-kid" you imply that it is the CI that defines the child. If you say "kid with CI" the feeling is that the child has the focus. A child with CI.

You, as a person are not defined by your deafness. Or, at least, there's more to Cheri than her deafnes, isn't there.?
So, when you are at a party, and there are 2 Cheri's, I don't think you would like to be referred to as "deaf-Cheri", but more likely as "Cheri who is deaf".. (Or blond-Cheri vs Cheri with the blond hair)

It's a feeling, and when you hear people talking about your child as a CI-child, it seems as if the CI is more important than the child.
Anyway... it's just a feeling. CI does not define Lotte.

But, then again, I do write "the child, it is walking" and not "the child, he/she is walking". Because, perhaps it should be "the child she/he is walking" as ladies go first. Except into a bar, or up the stairs. Then I guess "he/she " is walking...
BTW... get that child out of the bar !!!

 

[Cheri]

Cloggy..

Hun, Listen here.

Jillio did not say CI-Lotte, if she did that would been offensive. She only said CI-kids. (which she is speaking of kids with cochlear implant) Maybe she didn't want to type all that out, saved her time and energy. I see it as two different terms of words is not so much alike. Maybe you see it the other way around, but I don't see it the same way as you do.

 

[Cloggy]

Cloggy..

Hun, Listen here.

Jillio did not say CI-Lotte, if she did that would been offensive. She only said CI-kids. (which she is speaking of kids with cochlear implant) Maybe she didn't want to type all that out, saved her time and energy. I see it as two different terms of words is not so much alike. Maybe you see it the other way around, but I don't see it the same way as you do.

I know.. but I never talked about using in combination with a name. (I used some examples to transfer a feeling... didn't work...)

 

[Angel]

check this link

Terminology Tips
Fact Sheet

Wow, Thank you Liebling, this helps A LOT!!...I saved this in my favorites..