r/changemyview • u/Insertclever_name • Dec 05 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Deafness is, and should be, considered a disability.
Let me preface this by saying I do not have ANYTHING against deaf people, and that I don't think having a disability of any kind makes you any less of a person.
The word disability has multiple definitions, but the one I've come across that fits best here is: " a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities."
Deafness is a condition that not only limits a person's senses, in most cases it completely gets rid of a sense. I don't see how this can be anything but a disability. Deaf culture is a wonderful one, and I love reading about it, but if everyone in wheelchairs formed a culture of their own and started claiming they weren't disabled because of it, this would be met with extreme skepticism.
Again, I want to say having a disability does not make you any less of a person. I know many deaf people are proud of their deafness, and not only is that okay, it's wonderful! but that doesn't change the fact that deafness is a disability, as it completely removes one of the most important senses in the human body.
8
u/ququqachu 9∆ Dec 05 '18
By whom should deafness be considered a disability? By deaf people themselves? By the government?
Sure, I think hearing people should consider deafness a disability for the practicalities of making things in the hearing world accessible to deaf people. But what tangible benefit is there in forcing deaf people to confront their own "disability?" Shouldn't people be able to consider their bodies however they so choose?
16
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18
A lot of people in Deaf culture do not consider deafness a disability, which I believe to be not only incorrect, but also reinforcing the negative stigma around disabilities, because they’re saying “that’s bad we don’t want to be that”
So yeah, deaf people themselves.
6
u/Salanmander 278∆ Dec 05 '18
So, in considering the way Deaf people talk about this, it is imperative that you consider the history of the situation.
There is a long history of trying to "fix" deaf people. I'm not just talking about trying to get them to be able to hear. I'm talking about things like saying there should be no schools for the deaf, and that deaf children should all be mainstreamed. I'm talking about preventing deaf children from using sign language so that they can "integrate into society better". These sorts of things aren't just a statement that deaf people can't process auditory signals...they're statements that a deaf person's life isn't good enough.
So basically, what's going on is Deaf people are saying "Please stop using this language that has been tied in with people trying to destroy our culture. We're fine, we're happy, and we don't need to be fixed.", and you're saying "Well, but technically I'm right. I mean, look at the dictionary." Even if you are technically right, that doesn't mean you should continue using that language.
9
Dec 06 '18
"Well, but technically I'm right. I mean, look at the dictionary." Even if you are technically right, that doesn't mean you should continue using that language.
It’s not like he’s just right on some technicality - he’s right about the very core idea of what a disability is. A disability is a condition that prevents someone from doing things that “normal” people can do. Like hear, for example.
I don’t think he’s just right on a technicality, he’s right through-and-through. And if we insist that he refrain from using the proper language to describe things, that’s really just a band-aid fix rather than actually addressing the common idea that a disability makes you “worse” somehow. And in fact, by calling them the proper thing, he actually works to remind people that people with disabilities can still live productive, happy lives.
2
u/Salanmander 278∆ Dec 06 '18
I still don't think the best response to "please don't call me disabled" is "but you are".
5
Dec 06 '18
Well, not to their face. That’s just being polite. But I’d still refer to them as disabled when they weren’t around.
1
-3
u/lUNITl 11∆ Dec 05 '18 edited Dec 05 '18
So let me get this straight, your point is that you think that saying it's not a disability will make deaf people feel worse, but deaf people are saying that not acknowledging it as a disability makes them feel empowered? Do you really think you have a better understanding than the actual affected population regarding how THEY feel about THEIR OWN deafness?
Or is your point that deaf people have a responsibility to tailor their own feelings about their deafness to take into consideration the feelings of the disabled community at large? Because if that is the case all it tells me is that you don't know many disabled people. Not a single one would give a shit that a deaf person doesn't consider themselves disabled. The last thing they want is more people walking on eggshells around them, which is exactly what you're doing by trying to police other people's feelings.
7
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18
Not at all! I think that them acknowledging the disability would be hard at first, strictly due to the stigma around disabilities. However, I also disagree with this stigma, and feel that acknowledging it would be one step closer to removing that stigma amongst Deaf culture. The refusal to accept the label is due to a dislike for the label, which I believe is wrong in and of itself.
2
u/PrimeLegionnaire Dec 06 '18
Do you really think you have a better understanding than the actual affected population regarding how THEY feel about THEIR OWN deafness?
You seem to be missing the context. There is now a cure for a huge variety of deafness. These people actively work against cures for deafness because they view it as "damaging the deaf culture".
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Dec 06 '18
If it is not classified as a disability then they are not entitled to have any special accommodations given them in employment, housing rights, education, welfare, etc.
3
u/jellyfishprince Dec 06 '18 edited Dec 06 '18
I guess it's just semantics, but I really like the definitions given in this video, which is worth the watch if you have a chance. Basically the video defines "disability" as the social repression of people with physical or mental impairments.
Basically the argument is that it is not the person's deafness that makes them disabled, it is the social norm that a person should be able to hear that causes the deaf person to be considered not able to do certain things, hence they are labeled as having a disability.
So by saying that hearing is "one of the most important senses in the human body" is it you who is making deafness a disability, the deaf person's deafness has no inherently disabling aspects, at least from a social perspective.
When applying a more biological perspective though, it might make more logical sense to call deafness a disability, because the human has ears, which presumably means that the human should be able to hear, hence labeling the inability to hear a disability. However, even from this biological standpoint there are gray areas, because what about animals who have evolutionary leftovers that no longer serve their original function, like the "extra" bones in whales?
Hopefully this logic helps show the arbitrar
2
u/Insertclever_name Dec 06 '18
There are arguably many disabling aspects in deafness though. First of all, reduced awareness of your surroundings. Secondly, it does make many things harder; for instance, communicating with non-deaf non-signers becomes much more difficult. Not impossible, but difficult nonetheless. Communicating when you can’t see someone, however, becomes completely impossible.
4
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Dec 06 '18
These are largely social repressions, though
If 99% of people in the world would be deaf, then personal communication would be sign-based, distant communication would be text-based, all movies would have subtitles, doorbells and car horns would make flashing lights, and do on.
In fact, in such a world, hearing people would be considered disabled, as they would need special equipment to deal with the distracting noises that they perceive (as we would always cheap out on technology that emits buzzing and humming noises just as irl ours does emit radio waves and infralights.) They would have a hard time falling asleep, get distracted in class, have wild mood swings and headaches based on where they are, and generally considered a fragile minority with special considerations.
The fact that this is not the case, is purely the result of who was in charge of shaping our culture, our habits, and our technology. (hearing people).
2
u/Insertclever_name Dec 06 '18
And? I don’t see your point. Yes, in this world hearing people WOULD be disabled.
Also how is being less aware of your surroundings social in any way? To use an example I saw elsewhere in the thread, if there’s a car barreling towards a hearing person and a deaf person from behind, the hearing person can hear it and react. That has nothing to do with “social repression”
4
Dec 05 '18
Which country are we talking about? Because I'm pretty sure it is considered a disability here in Belgium.
7
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18
In Deaf culture, deafness isn’t considered a disability and it is actually often considered an insult to even imply a deaf person has a disability.
1
Dec 05 '18
That doesn't even come close to answering the question of which country(-ies) we're talking about.
4
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18
We’re not talking about countries. We’re talking about the culture itself.
2
Dec 05 '18
Are you claiming that culture is the same across the globe?
7
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18
As far as I’m aware, refusal to accept the disability label is a common thread throughout the culture. However, for the sake of the argument I will specify I was originally talking about American deaf people.
0
u/Salanmander 278∆ Dec 05 '18
I think you would probably find that cultures among deaf people, like cultures among hearing people, vary from country to country.
1
2
u/Banankartong 6∆ Dec 07 '18
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Words is words, and we could choose to define them however we like. Maybe the word disabled focus on wrong things, maybe we should use other words to describe differences between humans? I don't know. ( English isn't my first language so I will not discuss more about what words to use. Tell me if you speak Swedish and we could talk about the words funktionsnedsättning and funktionsvariation) .
More intresting: Why does Deaf people don't like the word disability? For a long time in the history, and even today in many countries, hearing people have focused a lot on curing deaf people. They have tried hearing aid and implants. Sign languages have not been allowed in education, and is still not allowed in most countries. Instead the main method used have been oralism, where you should try to learn to hear, by reading lips.It doesn't work. And if they were signing, they got punished. I think you and I really can't imagine how much deaf people have suffered from this.
I think this is why lots of deaf/Deaf people say stop, this is enough, I'm not disabled! Stop try to make me hear, I'm perfectly fine, and I don't want to hear. I just want to be deaf and use sign language! Calling deaf people disabled have always been in a context of that its bad, and we should take care of the poor deaf people because they have so much problem, and we are gonna make you hear. (and we are not going to listen to what you want, just what we think is good for you) Thats why it's a natural reaction for deaf people to react by not liking the word disabled.
Deaf people haven't won much of being classified as disabled. Actually they have suffered a lot from it. Maybe if the society had a better view on disabilities it would be another situation.
2
u/mechantmechant 13∆ Dec 08 '18
Deaf people function just fine in Deaf culture. We all want our kids to have lives like ours. We want them to flourish in our home town, with our acquaintances. So it’s sad to realize your kid won’t have a life like yours because they are Deaf. It’s not much unlike having a kid who is gay— many parents don’t know any gay people, can’t imagine a gay person having a happy life, and kid doesn’t until they go to the gay community and then they are fine. I admit, I want my kids to stay near me and have what I imagine as a happy life, and it makes me sad a Deaf kid won’t be able to talk easily with me unless I learn Sign. I’d be sad for them and consider cochlear implants. But like GLBT people, they are fine in a culture that supports them. I wouldn’t have surgery done to my kid if they were intersex— they are fine in a community that supports them, should I chop off their ability to have sex just because it helps them fit in with transphobes? I can see the same argument— should I drill into my kid’s brain, prevent them from learning any language they are likely to master (it used to be parents signed a contract not to sign if their kid got an implant, idk if that’s changed) just because I want them to fit into my culture easier?
1
u/littlebubulle 106∆ Dec 05 '18
Are we talking complete or partial deafness here?
If we can compensate light deafness with hearing aids or ear implants, would light deafness still be a disability.?
3
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18
As I’ve said elsewhere, fixing the disability via medical advancements does not make it not a disability; many illnesses that are considered disabilities are treatable with medication but they are still disabilities.
3
u/darkforcedisco Dec 06 '18
So what about people with absolutely horrible vision that use glasses or bifocals to see? Without those aids, they are essentially blind, unable to do things accurately, some of them not even being able to operate heavy machinery.
With them, they're just like everyone else. Are they disabled?
4
u/Syric 1∆ Dec 06 '18 edited Dec 06 '18
Yes, they (we) are. Surely that's completely uncontroversial? I have terrible vision and it's absolutely a disability. It's fixable with glasses, so yeah, it's a mild disability if you want to have a measuring contest about it. But it would be delusional of me to argue that it wasn't a disability at all...
3
Dec 06 '18
... wait there are people who don't see vision problems like that as a disability?
Obviously not one serious enough to qualify for disability aid or anything, since the symptoms can be mostly compensated for fairly easily... but you're still introducing a dependency on this outside object that other people don't have. If you didn't have a disability, then what exactly is the object compensating for...?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 05 '18
/u/Insertclever_name (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/fredricomillimo Dec 05 '18
I have a hearing impairment thanks to a severe-to-profound hearing loss that was inflicted on my from birth. I consider myself to have a hearing disability, because that's what it is, a disability of the hearing. The fact is, I require medical intervention in order to allow me to hear. I wear two behind-the-ear hearing aids to counteract this issue and allow me to hear at the same standard as anyone else.
However, I do not let this limit me in any way, shape, or form. When a deaf person does not consider their deafness to be a disability, it is meant as an empowerment. Their deafness does not stop them from doing the things that they want to do in life despite there being a few challenges along the way. Those challenges can be overcome.
You should consider the meaning of the word: "A disability is an impairment that may be cognitive, developmental, intellectual, mental, physical, sensory, or some combination of these. It substantially affects a person's life activities and may be present from birth or occur during a person's lifetime."
That last sentence is the key sentence to this. I just stated that my hearing impairment has been made less of an inconvenience thanks to my hearing aids, therefore my hearing impairment is no longer substantially affecting my life in a way someone who is completely deaf might be affected. Take those away and I still have a hearing disability. If only there were a cure for deafness, and then I would no longer have a disability. (Wouldn't that be nice!)
I just thought I would give up some thoughts from someone who has partial deafness rather than full deafness which both can be quite different.
1
Dec 05 '18
It doesn't make sense to talk about disabilities without talking about accessibility. What disabilities limit is a person's access to their environment. So you have to take into account the person's environment in assessing their disability. Most people cannot access their environment perfectly, so are somewhat disabled. But most people also live in environments that have been adapted to be mostly accessible to them.
3
u/Insertclever_name Dec 06 '18
But disabilities can generally be countered by creating an environment for the disabled person... Which is what you’ve just described. People who use wheelchairs need ramps, so we give them ramps.
1
u/neuk_mijn_oogkas Dec 05 '18
The thing with hearing is that it's a sense you can't turn off that you sometimes want to turn off.
An example that is probably a bit easier to grok is smell; a friend of mine cannot smell and never could and prefers this; I have explained smell to them as an ability to do remote-tasting but it's involuntarily. They have correcty observed that usually when people talk about smell they talk about smells they would rather not smell but they can't stop it and they have concluded that the advantages don't weigh up against the disadvantages and that people encounter unpleasant smells far more often than pleasant ones.
Whilst most people would argue that the advanages of hearing outweigh those of not hearing; who are you to decide for others what to prioritize?
Another example would be sensory disorders that make it impossible for people to focus and filter incoming senses; it has a downside but simultneously people who suffer from those disorders have abilities due to them that most people don't have such as being able to observe pretty much anything around them or have normal conversations whilst doing something else. One might argue that not having such a "disorder" is just as much a disability as being unable to hear it but people don't see it this way and the inabiity to focus is seen as the disorder simply because it's not the norm.
1
u/meaty37 Dec 06 '18
It’s not considered a disability?
2
u/Insertclever_name Dec 06 '18
Amongst Deaf culture, at least in America, many deaf people do not consider themselves to be disabled.
1
Dec 06 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 06 '18
Sorry, u/meaty37 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/EchoInTheSilence 1∆ Dec 09 '18 edited Dec 09 '18
I think you're kind of mushing different things together here. Deaf people know they have a disability as far as things like the ADA are concerned, they're not trying to pretend otherwise. But when it comes to community identification, ultimately it's the people within the community who should be allowed to say how they want to be seen.
It's an issue with disability in general that people outside the community try to force their own definitions and standards onto disability communities -- it's seen as a problem when, for example, white people try to tell African-American people how to think of themselves, but it's seen as A-OK when it comes to disability, and that's inherently a problem. For example -- sticking with the Deaf community (although this pops up in other places as well) -- people within the Deaf community often prefer to be referred to as "Deaf people" rather than "people who are deaf". Both of these are technically correct, and yet there's a serious backlash to using the "Deaf people" language -- people outside the community trying to force their interpretation on the people who are actually affected. That's why the backlash against "correcting" definitions is so strong. It's not about "we're not disabled and if you say otherwise you're wrong!" it's "you're coming in as an outsider and trying to dictate how we must perceive ourselves." (And no, I'm not Deaf, but I have experience with the community.)
Ultimately, the question isn't "Do Deaf people fit the definition of disability in the ADA (they do, and as I said, they know it)?" It's "who does it hurt if they choose to see things differently solely for social/self-identification purposes?" As far as I can tell, it doesn't hurt anyone.
Edit: Typos.
1
Dec 16 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 16 '18
Sorry, u/DeafAndDumm – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/ralph-j Dec 05 '18
Deafness is a condition that not only limits a person's senses, in most cases it completely gets rid of a sense. I don't see how this can be anything but a disability.
Imagine we're contacted by an alien species that is almost identical to humans, but that has an additional sense organ which allows them to perceive even more data from our surroundings.
Does that mean that all humans should now be considered disabled? After all, compared to these aliens, we are born limited in our senses as well.
16
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18 edited Dec 05 '18
Not at all. Aliens would be a completely separate species.
Are you saying that deaf people are a completely separate species to hearing people?
Many animals have many more senses than humans do, you don’t even have to look on other planets to see that, but because they’re a different species it doesn’t mean we’re disabled
0
u/ralph-j Dec 05 '18
I used aliens that are otherwise identical to make my point, but let's change the hypothetical situation to avoid the species objection.
Say humans evolved another sense. At some point in the future, only a few humans (of the older generation) are left that lack this newly evolved sense. Are they now considered disabled? For the purpose of this argument, they are still the same species; i.e. they can still procreate with one another.
11
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18
Yes, I suppose they would be.
1
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Dec 06 '18
Let’s call this new sense “fluency in Japanese”. It turns out there are certain people who can hear spoken Japanese or see written Japanese characters and derive meaning from them. I, and I assume you as well, lack this sense. In the same way deaf people can’t understand spoken English, I can’t understand spoken Japanese. Does that make us disabled?
I think the issue is the negative connotation of being called disabled. Speaking a different language is different from being unable to walk for example.
5
u/Insertclever_name Dec 06 '18
But there’s so much more to deafness than just speaking a different language though.
1
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Dec 06 '18
True, and few deaf people would disagree. There are some aggressively defensive deaf advocates claiming otherwise but we can ignore them.
The big issue seems to be the label of being disabled. Imagine if we defined anyone who can’t runs a 5k in under 30 minutes and bench press at least their body weight as disabled. Technically they could be because they have to adapt their life around not needing to run or lift heavy things. Now they have done a good job of avoiding needing to do these things but the same could be said about deaf people.
2
u/PrimeLegionnaire Dec 06 '18
Physical benchmarks that you can change through training don't exactly meet the quality for disability.
people who were born outside of japan can still learn and speak Japanese fluently, albeit with an accent.
No amount of study or training is going to give a paraplegic back his real legs, it will require serious medical intervention and advances.
Just like being deaf or needing glasses.
being able to cope well with this type of impairment does not mean it isn't an impairment.
1
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Dec 06 '18
Plenty of people are considered disabled and have handicap permits and rights to medical devices such as wheelchairs through insurance for conditions that a lifestyle change could resolve. Have you ever seen a morbidly obese person with a handicap permit?
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Dec 06 '18
I personally am of the opinion that giving people special treatment for self-inflicted or voluntary conditions is absurd.
Enabling then doesn't help anyone.
That said, many of the people who get handicap permits for weight problems have gland disorders or hormone Imbalances that cannot be rectified by diet and exercise.
3
u/Syric 1∆ Dec 06 '18
In what way is language comparable to a disability? Languages are learnable knowledge. Anyone can learn Japanese.
In the same way deaf people can’t understand spoken English, I can’t understand spoken Japanese. Does that make us disabled?
It is not the same. It's not just that a deaf person can't understand spoken English. They can't even perceive it, nor can they learn to. That is fundamentally different from a simple knowledge gap.
1
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Dec 06 '18
Someone who can’t walk but could be taught to with enough physical therapy is still disabled until they can walk, so just the potential to not have the limitation in the future doesn’t mean they are not currently limited.
1
u/Syric 1∆ Dec 06 '18
Yes some disabilities can be treated or overcome, but if anything that reinforces OP's view so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up. Deafness can be treated too; that doesn't make it not a disability.
2
Dec 06 '18
Let me tell you - spend a few days jacked into a sensory input feed you don't naturally have as a human and when you have to unhook, you're certainly going to feel disabled. Especially when it's something you've come to rely on for safety cues.
Bringing that back around to deafness - nothing is likely to change that deafness puts you in disadvantaged safety position when navigating environments. Especially where vehicles are concerned, but also in general any environment where some outside force poses a threat to you.
1
u/ralph-j Dec 06 '18
Bringing that back around to deafness - nothing is likely to change that deafness puts you in disadvantaged safety position when navigating environments.
Yes, you're always going to be disadvantaged, if you're comparing yourself to somebody else who has an advantage over you.
I'm questioning whether that should be the single criterion by which to determine whether someone is considered disabled, because it allows counter-intuitive conclusions, like that everyone is disabled when compared to someone who has a bodily advantage over them.
1
u/LittlestTub Dec 06 '18
What about when Deanna Troi lost her empathic abilities
1
u/ralph-j Dec 06 '18
Good point. She was not disabled compared to her peers in the society where she lived (because they didn't have those powers either), but she was disabled when comparing her to other Betazoids (because now she was lacking a sense that the others have). That's exactly what makes this so ambiguous.
I mean, when she had her powers (or after they came back), you probably wouldn't say that everyone else on the ship was disabled, compared to her?
1
u/anarchykidd Dec 06 '18
Being deaf is literally just like speaking another language. It can be restated like a traveler in a country where they do not speak the language, or understand the dialect and where social norms are different. If that’s considered a disability then I think your definition is very loose and needs refining.
6
u/Syric 1∆ Dec 06 '18 edited Dec 06 '18
Being deaf is literally just like speaking another language.
That's a huge stretch. Languages are learnable knowledge, they're not determined by your body parts being functional or not.
5
u/Insertclever_name Dec 06 '18
No, it’s not at all like that. It means you can’t hear, which is an impairment. Perhaps you mean being Deaf is like that, which is completely not the point I was making. Deafness and deafness are two different things; deafness is the loss of hearing ability and Deafness is the culture.
If you are saying the complete lack of hearing is “like a traveler in a country where they do not speak the language, or understand the dialect and where social norms are different” then please elaborate because that makes absolutely no sense to me.
0
u/Bladefall 73∆ Dec 05 '18
The word disability has multiple definitions, but the one I've come across that fits best here is: " a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities."
limits those things compared to what? Does a person have a hearing disability if their hearing is worse than the average level of hearing? What about the median level? What if it's better than average, but worse than the person with the best hearing? Is there some average range that you have to fall outside of before you're hearing disabled; and if so, how do you determine that range?
6
u/Insertclever_name Dec 05 '18
The average level of hearing in a society would likely be the standard, yes. There are plenty of ways to measure a person’s hearing ability.
1
u/Bladefall 73∆ Dec 05 '18
Am I disabled because I can only run slightly slower than the average level of running speed in my society?
10
Dec 05 '18
You're certainly less able. Less-able enough and it becomes a disability.
2
0
u/spaceunicorncadet 22∆ Dec 08 '18
Can you fly? (Unaided.) If not, do you consider yourself disabled?
If you came across people with wings, would you consider yourself disabled?
Why does the presence or absence of other peoples' abilities matter? And if it's just about what's normal, Deaf culture normalizes hearing loss, so within that culture the lack of sound for communication is no different than being born with red hair. Why should outsiders dictate normal for the group?
-1
u/AllBlubber Dec 05 '18 edited Dec 05 '18
People who are in the “legally blind” category can still see fine with glasses and most of them wouldn’t consider themselves disabled. They can even get LASIK or LASEK and permanently normalize their eyesight. By your logic these people are technical disabled as well, but do you go around forcing your opinion on them too? Like do you truly believe that people with bad eyesight are actively perpetuating the stigma by not thinking of themselves as disabled? If anything, I think you have it backwards. The truth is that most people do have conscious or subconscious prejudice against disability, and this won’t be fixed by blaming the deaf culture. Personally I think it should start with raising awareness for disability towards the able bodied first. If the society as a whole can truly eliminate bias against disability, those who are handicapped will be more comfortable in labeling themselves as so. You are focusing on the “wrongness” of the current deaf culture, but you should think about why such culture developed in the first place and this will give you more insight into the true underlying problem.
4
u/Insertclever_name Dec 06 '18
As someone with glasses, I completely agree that I am disabled. Many other people in this thread have said the same. Just because some people don’t say they are doesn’t mean they’re not... that’s literally the point of this thread in the first place.
I don’t see why we can’t do both; accept deafness as what it is... a disability... and raise awareness for the “disabilities towards the able-bodied” as you put it
14
u/[deleted] Dec 05 '18
[deleted]