I suppose I can sort of see the point of writing *Deaf* with a capital D (though I don't know anyone who actually speaks in capital letters), but to extend the same practice to the condition - or any other condition, come to that - seems a bit precious.
I'm lame. I could be described as Lame, or one of the Lame, but saying that I suffer from Lameness is rather odd, IMHO.
In fairness, normal English orthographic practice is that if the root word starts with a capital, any derived words start with a capital as well regardless of whether they are proper nouns or not. Hence we would say Britishness, Byronesque, Finlandisation (OK I know that's derogatory, but not because of the capitalisation), Stalinist, etc ...
(I suppose the exception would be where the root has been forgotten, e.g. boycott and possibly bowdlerise.)
Lowercase when referring to a hearing-loss condition or to a deaf person who prefers lowercase. Capitalize for those who identify as members of the Deaf community or when they capitalize Deaf when describing themselves. Deaf should be used as an adjective, not as a noun; it describes a person with profound or complete hearing loss.
which reads to me as if deafness is referring to the hearing-loss condition and should be lower case.
In fairness, normal English orthographic practice is that if the root word starts with a capital, any derived words start with a capital as well regardless of whether they are proper nouns or not. Hence we would say Britishness, Byronesque, Finlandisation (OK I know that's derogatory, but not because of the capitalisation), Stalinist, etc ...
(I suppose the exception would be where the root has been forgotten, e.g. boycott and possibly bowdlerise.)
Some of this is a little sensitive. Trying not to be offensive is always good. Deciding to not correct people to your preference is also worthy. So sometimes deaf and sometimes Deaf.
Some of this is a little sensitive. Trying not to be offensive is always good. Deciding to not correct people to your preference is also worthy. So sometimes deaf and sometimes Deaf.
Yes, wise words.
ISTM, though, that the problem is in knowing when to capitalise, and when to use lowercase...whatever one does seems bound to inadvertently upset or offend somebody.
There is currently a story line on Coronation Street, in which one of the quads has turned out to have a form of deafness. The mother has already picked up some sign, the father less so. They had two Deaf people in today to help, encouraging them, even the father, saying people learn at different paces. They are discussing the possibility of an implant, with differing feelings about it. In today's programme they didn't go into any of the details above about problems with it. They are using some sign without translations or subtitles, and specially showing just the hands for some parts.
Out of curiosity, why are people thinking 'First of all, it's Deaf, not deaf' is inpolite? It's direct, it's brief, it's correcting you, but it's not insulting you or mocking you. Just stating something. If you have reason to disagree or qualify, based on your own experience of Deaf/deaf people, are you not free to do so?
Out of curiosity, why are people thinking 'First of all, it's Deaf, not deaf' is inpolite? It's direct, it's brief, it's correcting you, but it's not insulting you or mocking you. Just stating something. If you have reason to disagree or qualify, based on your own experience of Deaf/deaf people, are you not free to do so?
The challenge of internet discussion, where tone of voice and body language are absent, coupled with the wide variety of cultural assumptions and conventions that people from all over the place bring to the table.
Where I’m from, and absent other contextual clues, “First of all it’s Deaf, not deaf,” would likely be taken not so much as rude or impolite as such, but rather as lecturing or know-it-all, or at least short and perhaps dismissive. And it could easily carry an implied “and why don’t you know that already?” It would likely not be how one would phrase something if the desire was for the person on the receiving end to not feel judged.
I fully recognize that perception may not at all how match intention, but that’s a challenge on a forum like this.
The reality is that kind of directness or briefness works in some cultural contexts and doesn’t work in some others.
True, but it happens elsewhere on these forums that people are often telling people things they may already know, assuming they don't know without asking first, sounding quite know-it-all and lecturing - it's quite usual here on the Ship, and people don't normally declare it to be rude.
I think the post that started off the discussion was taken to be couched in somewhat hectoring tones, as though we should have known to use the capital D.
True, but it happens elsewhere on these forums that people are often telling people things they may already know, assuming they don't know without asking first, sounding quite know-it-all and lecturing - it's quite usual here on the Ship, and people don't normally declare it to be rude.
I think there's a fine line between lecturing and hectoring, and details of someone's word choice can push someone else's perception over the line. So whilst you might think that three people's comments were equally brusque, someone else might think one of them stood out as being quite rude.
I think the reality of an asynchronous discussion format is that people tend to put more context and explanation into their posts, for two reasons:
1. It takes too long to have a back-and-forth with someone asynchronously to figure out what they know, and what they need explaining.
2. Posts are read by a lot of people, so even if you know the person you're responding too knows something, the thread's wider readership might not.
True, but it happens elsewhere on these forums that people are often telling people things they may already know, assuming they don't know without asking first, sounding quite know-it-all and lecturing - it's quite usual here on the Ship, and people don't normally declare it to be rude.
That doesn’t necessarily mean (some) people aren’t thinking it. To be honest, such posting frequently does come across to me as rude/dismissive/lecturing/impatient. But I generally don’t say anything because I’m aware that my perception may not match the writer’s intention, so why go there unless there’s a particular reason. I generally just assume good faith despite how the tone strikes me, unless a specific shipmate has given me reason not to.
And I’ve been on the Ship long enough—and lived long enough—to have learned that what I would reasonably perceive as rude if someone where I live were to speak to me that way may not be seen as rude at all in other places. So again, I generally presume good faith.
But I do notice when other shipmates from the same general place as the poster also find something rude.
Hosting
As this thread isn't in Purgatory, maybe we could focus it a bit more on Deaf people's own preferences about the language they'd like people to use and how they prefer to have sign language regarded and discussed?
It's exactly Deaf people's own preferences I'm trying to ascertain. Because every single website I can find from an organisation of Deaf people is conveying to me that I ought to be talking about congenital deafness.
So I am Lame (or lame, as I prefer the lowercase version), but suffering from lameness?
FWIW the use of the word 'suffering' in relation to any form of disability is pretty controversial too. The bottom I line, I suppose is about using the terms the person you are conversing with is comfortable with - but it is often not universally clear. To which I know folk will respond with 'ask then, don't assume'.
However, I think part of the issue is that a) one might also assume that someone doesn't want their disability to be the focus and beginning of every interaction they have, b) you may be speaking/writing in the belief that the usage you are adopting is universal because that is all you have encountered to date and c) you may have habits of speech/writing that you are barely aware of (that you may well need to change but have not yet succeeded in doing so) - phrases such as 'wheelchair bound' for example.
All that said, I am not sure that I agree it is always the case that the most recent generation's choice of usage is the universal the default usage. As a gay woman I grew up with queer as a slur, some people have 'reclaimed' it but I still wouldn't be massively comfortable with people describing me as queer.
A lot of the posting about Deaf as a concept on this thread reads as if the experience of people with acquired deafness, or partial rather than total hearing loss, is somehow less valid or important and I don't think that is true.
I think that there is a distinction between the Deaf community - some of whom may be hearing - where the emphasis is on provision in sign language (BSL/Makaton/ASL/etc) and those who are deaf but are not part of the Deaf community.
Families with both Deaf and hearing members can choose to be part of the Deaf community to support the Deaf members - because it is a whole lot easier signing than trying to sign and speak, as there is such a mismatch between the languages that that only really allows augmented speech, where whoever is speaking/reading is signing the important words, but that is very stilted grammatically in sign language. Especially as the difference between some signs is the emphasis used in producing them - rain for example. Differences between that the Deaf community are things like houses or places of accommodation and places of interest need visual alarms to be safe for Deaf people and people need signing to be understood. (Although I am aware of profoundly deaf children being taught to speak within Deaf schools so they can ask for help in a hearing world.)
I am also aware of hearing children with speech and language processing difficulties, including young children on the autistic spectrum, who find sign language the only way they can communicate.
People who have become deaf through old age or through an injury can be profoundly deaf, and also have needs to be addressed. Also some deaf children in hearing families may not be supported into the Deaf community. In those cases the deafness is likely to understood as a disability; it will be disabling as they are not in environments that support their needs without needing to hear.
I have worked with children with hearing impairments in mainstream settings. In one case I learned Makaton to support a younger child (whose deafness had been caused by whooping cough at 3 months), driving the child's mother to the same lessons. I used the Makaton to augment speech in the preschool I led at the time, where the child attended, and realised how many other children used the signing to understand what was going on. I haven't been using it as this area uses BSL and they are sufficiently different languages to not map accurately.
We also taught basic BSL to Guides recently - with the support of someone who signs as part of her job - and she was showing us the sign for Covid19.
Having been reading here, I noticed that the actress playing the mother in Corrie was using some sign along with spoken English and wondered how that was consistent with what Ck was telling us. Augmenting speech, I think, with odd words in sign, but I felt the sign syntax wasn't there. (By comparison with programmes where there is a signer in the corner and it is very obvious that what is signed doesn't map onto the speech.)
Our school special unit used Makaton, but they didn't teach the rest of us. Is it a good idea to teach a second sign other than BSL or ASL? (Thinking about those people taught ASL not their native sign. And that maps on to other attitudes to mother tongues that have been in the news recently.)
Too late to edit. I've been looking up Makaton and found it uses the local sign language in collaboration withe the local Deaf community, so in Britain, BSL, so that gets rid of that question.
But then I learn that BSL has dialects in different parts of the country.
Too late to edit. I've been looking up Makaton and found it uses the local sign language in collaboration withe the local Deaf community, so in Britain, BSL, so that gets rid of that question.
But then I learn that BSL has dialects in different parts of the country.
Makaton is a simplified sign system (not a language) based on BSL, for people with learning disabilities, or other brain disorders, who may find language difficult. It is used in the UK with speaking English (not with its own grammar) to enhance people's understanding of English, by having visuals as well as audio. Basically to enhance people's ability to communicate when they have cognitive/language impairment. And sometimes within a school, for instance, signs are invented relevant to something new that needs a sign, so it will naturally vary depending on setting.
On top of that I believe that people used to be taught Paget Gorman - which is a direct sign translation of English including punctuation, in order to study English texts etc but I don’t know if that is still done.
For those interested, here is an article about big D Deaf and small d deaf (which is how they are referred to in speaking and signing). It is written by a British Deaf person (though almost 20 years ago).
The term d/Deaf is sometimes used in writing to include both kinds. Here is another article, far more recent, written by an American woman, who was deaf from birth, but choose to have cochlear implants later in life (that info is from clicking on her name - the actual article is about big D Deaf and small d deaf, and when each are used.)
And here is a simple fact sheet, from the British Deaf Association, about terminology. Including the advice, which should be obvious, to ask the individual how they prefer to be described. It is different for different people. It's also important to be aware that, while people born Deaf may be proudly part of a Deaf community, and find it offensive if people see their deafness as an impairment, for people who become deaf later in life, it can be experienced as a loss, something very difficult for them to adjust to.
So I am Lame (or lame, as I prefer the lowercase version), but suffering from lameness?
FWIW the use of the word 'suffering' in relation to any form of disability is pretty controversial too. The bottom I line, I suppose is about using the terms the person you are conversing with is comfortable with - but it is often not universally clear. To which I know folk will respond with 'ask then, don't assume'.
<snip>
I may have used the word *suffering* subconsciously, because my lameness does cause me suffering - chronic (sometimes acute) pain, frustration at not being able even to totter around a shop...but I fully appreciate the point you're making.
For those interested, here is an article about big D Deaf and small d deaf (which is how they are referred to in speaking and signing). It is written by a British Deaf person (though almost 20 years ago).
The term d/Deaf is sometimes used in writing to include both kinds. Here is another article, far more recent, written by an American woman, who was deaf from birth, but choose to have cochlear implants later in life (that info is from clicking on her name - the actual article is about big D Deaf and small d deaf, and when each are used.)
And here is a simple fact sheet, from the British Deaf Association, about terminology. Including the advice, which should be obvious, to ask the individual how they prefer to be described. It is different for different people. It's also important to be aware that, while people born Deaf may be proudly part of a Deaf community, and find it offensive if people see their deafness as an impairment, for people who become deaf later in life, it can be experienced as a loss, something very difficult for them to adjust to.
A pertinent point that Tom Shakespeare makes in the book mentioned previously, relating to 'suffering' and the social model of disability, is that the social model doesn't account for pain. Pain that can come from a disability, regardless of how accessible society is. Obviously he wasn't using this as a reason to discard the social model - on the contrary, he talks very positively about it - but he was making the point that these things are rarely black and white, and a person can suffer as a direct result of their disability, in addition to the various types of inaccessibility/ableism in society.
From this, he was showing that oversimplification and black-and-white thinking can hinder the advance of disability studies. He gave as an example the different terminology that Brits and Americans decide is offensive or acceptable, and how as a result, Brits and Americans working in disability studies were refusing to work with each other. When in reality, if they found a way to work together, and share their expertise, the field of disability studies would advance further, and disabled people would benefit from this.
Though of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't be challenging ableism, and I agree with Pomona that 'inspiration porn' is a huge issue for disabled people. The irony is that often people are sentimentalising disability on the one hand, but then when faced with the awkward (for them) reality of disabled people, they get offended when the disabled person isn't this sweet, grateful person who loves the fact that they are inspired by them! I'm talking generally, of the world outside of the Ship, but it would be odd if such attitudes never happened here, because they have been the attitudes society has ingrained into people in my lifetime. I think the best way to overcome these attitudes is actually get to know disabled people, listen to them, let them challenge you, annoy you, inform you when you've said something stupid, and just be friends with them the way you're friends with anyone. It's very hard to sentimentalise anyone that way.
Out of curiosity, why are people thinking 'First of all, it's Deaf, not deaf' is inpolite? It's direct, it's brief, it's correcting you, but it's not insulting you or mocking you. Just stating something. If you have reason to disagree or qualify, based on your own experience of Deaf/deaf people, are you not free to do so?
As the remark was addressed to me, I hope it's okay if I reply to this. The response was so direct and so brief there was actually no explanation as to why it was Deaf and not deaf. Being impolite is just an issue of whether one is a courteous person or not, which is arguably of no interest in a discussion. However, it wasn't so much the sense of being impolite that got up my nose. It was the simple fact of such a response being essentially useless in a discussion forum. The explanation didn't come until later on when the poster was challenged. I was, I think, supportive of what it seemed the poster was trying to do, in principle.
I expect I've grown too old and overly sensitive for these kind of discussions, anyway. I don't have the smarts to negotiate today's minefields of cultural appropriatness. And clearly being a person of goodwill is of no value any more, to say nothing about how irrelevant one's own experience might be considered on the issue, because the language doesn't fit. One isn't even worth the effort of educating, apparently, or wasting explanations on. I shall now return to the antediluvian rock from which I crawled under, and where obviously I should have remained.
There is a whole debate to be had about allydom. It can give the opportuinity to be dismissive and abrasive while maintaining the appearance of virtue. I am not a fan.
Thank you for your clear explanation and links @fineline.
Pain is a variable thing too. I’m experiencing both severe, acute and chronic pain at the moment and working with the pain management team to work on dealing with it. It’s fascinating. Our minds, brains, nerves and bodies are far more interconnected than I ever realised.
I’m using all sorts of accessibility tools at the moment and I’m incredibly grateful for them. I can’t imagine living with this (or other disabilities eg blindness) without modern computers and accessibility tools.
I mentioned earlier, when discussing the use of language, that intent is more important that getting things right, imo, because we all do have different experiences. Community is about working together for outcomes not creating barriers.
Earlier it was mentioned about disabled people supposedly having ‘superpowers’. My twin, who has been visually impaired from birth and attended a boarding school for visually impaired children, was always being asked if he had extra sensitive hearing because he couldn’t see. Of course he didn’t! But I’ve seen the opposite too, with people wanting to overprotect disabled people as they are seen as ‘vulnerable’. I once took a party of ophthalmic nurses to a school for visually impaired children and one nurse was horrified that the children were running around and said ‘Stop them, they might hurt themselves’. I replied, ‘Of course they’ll hurt themselves, they’re children’. When I thought about it later I considered how my experience of visual impairment was so different to her’s, mine had involved fighting and bickering with my twin as all siblings do, alongside annual gymkhanas where visually impaired children charged around on horseback putting flags in buckets. It had never occurred to me to treat a visually impaired child differently to any other. When I was an ophthalmic nurse, patients would remark at how naturally I guided them and I used to say that it was natural for me as I had been guiding since I was 3 years old.
@Anselmina - FWIW, I had thought your response to Pomona was very clear and made your point well. I was referring more to a couple of people who had cited that one sentence and simply said they found it rude. I had interpreted your reply as being about exactly what you are saying here - needing more information for the statement to mean anything.
I agree with you, and to me, that aspect is relevant to the discussion, and not a tone policing thing. For people to be on board with terminology, it's important to understand it, even if the understanding is simply 'The Deaf community have said they want to be addressed this way,' and a link as evidence. And it does seem to be more complex than simply always using a capital letter for the word 'deaf', which is what I hoped to convey through the links I provided. So it's not a simple case of 'It's Deaf, not deaf,' but a whole discussion about when big D Deaf and little d deaf are appropriate, and that discussion should of course be led by d/Deaf people, which is why I found articles written by d/Deaf people.
Yes, it's why I found a charity, Sign Health, the Deaf Health Charity, supporting d/Deaf people, which is run by a "Deaf-led team" (to quote their own term) to give the definition I gave, here (link)
I hope that people for whom these usages are commonplace will spare a thought for those of us who are trying to pick our way through the said minefield without offending anyone...
Personally I loathe and detest the term hard of hearing, I' m not sure why. I'm glad that it isn't used much here anymore.
If I don't hear something I usually ask the speaker to repeat what they said and explain than I have a hearing disability, Sometimes I ask them to speak more slowly too (which probably means it also about how I process sound).
I was tested when I was a child, but back then the loss wasn't considered enough for hearing aids - which were fairly primitive back then.
I did spend time as a volunteer at Van Asch School, the only school for Deaf children in the South Island of NZ. I wasn't there long, but I did gain some appreciation of Deaf Culture, having been woefully ignorant when I first went there.
New Zealand Sign is one of the 3 official languages here, the others being Maori and English.
Just out of interest, what sign languages are in use in the UK? I know of BSL, and some have mentioned Makaton, but I seem to think there may be more...
...or, if not actual languages, means of communication IYSWIM.
Just out of interest, what sign languages are in use in the UK? I know of BSL, and some have mentioned Makaton, but I seem to think there may be more...
...or, if not actual languages, means of communication IYSWIM.
My understanding is that the main ways of signing in the UK are BSL and Sign Supported English. Signed Supported English uses the signs of BSL but in the word order of English. Full BSL has its own word order and grammar.
There is another kind of signing* I learnt about, which I can't remember the name of, but it involves complementing lip reading by using hand signs to distinguish between phonemes that look the same in lip reading (like b, p and m). From the research I read about it, it works well once learned, and is really good for helping with literacy if a child's first language is English and not BSL (because literacy can be difficult for congenitally deaf kids if their first language isn't BSL or whatever sign language is used in their country), but not many people use it and it's quite difficult to learn.
But BSL is the only sign language I know of in the UK. Signed Supported English and this other signing system aren't sign languages, as such, as they aren't languages, but a way to complement spoken English. Same with Makaton.
Though I'm sure there are deaf people from other countries who move to the UK and are using their sign languages in the UK. And I see from googling that there is an Irish Sign Language, similar to French Sign Language, mainly used in the Republic of Ireland, but also sometimes used in Northern Ireland.
*Edited to add: I finally found it from googling. It's called Cued Speech.
I have found this a very interesting thread . Kingfold's experience at the eucharist was wonderful.Might it have been compared to the priest 'singing' as well as speaking the words.
One can both read/speak and sing at the same time,just as also in certain rites manual gestures are made at the same time as the words.
It seems to me cruel to say that kingsfold should not find this signing as uplifting,just because he is not ? able to use the language fully.
As a person who speaks five languages fluently I am always pleased when I hear people attempting to use a language which they do not fully understand and I share their joy when they manage to make some sense of something which someone has said,just as I feel as sense of elation if I manage to understand something in a language which I do not speak.
It is maybe something personal but I don't like the expression 'ableism',though I accept that it exists. We all have certain abilities,just as we all have certain disabilities in the sense that some of us are good at woodwork but tone deaf with music. Not all 'disabilities' are formally classified as such.
I once translated on these boards the Italian term 'diversamente abile' as 'differently enabled' and got my nose on a plate for daring to use such an expression.
And yet for 10 years I worked regularly with children who for the most part could not walk,could not talk, could not see properly and could not hear properly,indeed sometimes they could not swallow either. All our work was in trying to 'enable' those children to have as many experiences of life and to communicate with others to the best of their ability.
Simplified sign language was used for those who had some sight,but obviously there was never a need to discuss politics nor religious terms like transubstantiation.
Even those who had no speech and no sight could indicate appreciation of care and attention given to them.
Ableism is a newer term, which I think makes some people resistant to it, as it can feel to them like a newfangled expression for something that didn't need to have an expression before. To me this is more about society being slower to acknowledge that discrimination against disabled people is a thing, in the same way that racism and sexism are a thing. I remember about twenty years ago, being interviewed for a job in a care home for adults woth learning disabilities, and I was asked how I would describe equal opportunities. I talked about the importance of not discriminating against people based on gender, race, sexual orientation or disability. And the manager told me I was the only candidate who mentioned disability- that none of the others had thought to mention it. These days, it is routinely included in discussion on equal opportunities, but not so long ago, it wasn't.
Perhaps part of the reason is that discrimination against disabled people has tended to include a sort of pity, and a bit of sentimentalising, and sometimes a feeling of virtuous self-righteousness. So it's very difference from outright dislike or disdain for a group of people, or seeing them as bad people, and so harder to recognise. I think Pamono mentioned Stella Young's talk about inspiration porn - it's definitely worth a watch if you haven't seen it. Very humorous in how she deals with it, but also making serious points.
'Differently abled' is generally considered a bit of an ignorant and patronising terms these days, though the people who came up with it were well-intentioned. Perhaps it's a little similar to the term 'colour blind' being used by white people, to suggest they don't see the colour of their friends, that everyone is the same - it was meant in a well-intentioned way, but of course people of colour have since said that it's not helpful. They (unlike white people) are made aware of their skin colour all the time through various systematic racism in society, so pretending one isn't aware of colour isn't helpful. To be a genuine ally, one needs to actually be aware of the inequalities in society that people experience due to skin colour. And similarly the issues and inequalities people experience due to disability. So suggesting we're all a bit disabled, or that no one is disabled and we're all differently abled, isn't helpful from that perspective. It is also seen as suggesting that disabled is a bad word, something to be ashamed of, something that makes a person somehow inferior. Which is where the social model comes in handy, because then you are looking at how society is disabling people, and how to address this, to break down barriers.
It seems to me quite a basic thing that when a group of people say that they don't like a term being used to refer to them, and they explain why, that people should be open to this and respect their wishes. I think sometimes people are very quick to feel personally insulted by such things, rather than listening and taking on board and realising it's actually not about them at all. I've said plenty of insensistive terms, and used well-intentioned terms that people informed me were seen as offensive. We all do. Though I find myself more inclined to listen to people in the group that supposedly find it offensive, to hear what they really think, as people often speak on their behalf without consulting them, which is also a form of oppression. Ian Dury's song 'Spasticus Autisticus' is a case in point. It was banned by people weren't disabled, who didn't realise he was disabled himself, who didn't get the point the song was making, while plenty of disabled people got it and thought it was great.
Thank you for your comments ,fineline.
I've never heard of 'colour blind' being used in any other way than to suggest that some people see as 'green' what others see as 'blue' and the person who has the minority view is described as 'colour blind'
While it might not be helpful to you to suggest that we all have our abilities and our disabilities,I think that it is nevertheless true. Some people have to fight more than others for their abilities to be recognised by others and those with physical or mental disabilities even more,but we should try to concentrate on what people can do rather than what they can't.
Thank you for your comments ,fineline.
I've never heard of 'colour blind' being used in any other way than to suggest that some people see as 'green' what others see as 'blue' and the person who has the minority view is described as 'colour blind'
It’s a very common expression on the west side of The Pond, often used in assertions like “we want to move to being a color blind society.” And it is indeed problematic as @fineline says, as it suggests a disinterest, however well-intentioned, in seeing all of a person.
While it might not be helpful to you to suggest that we all have our abilities and our disabilities,I think that it is nevertheless true.
It's more about the definition of the term 'disability,' which is about the extent to which something causes significant difficulties in one's life. I am extremely myopic, and wear glasses to correct it. This is not a disability. If glasses didn't correct it, I'd be definitely registered blind, which would be a disability, but glasses correct it, so it's not much of an issue. Wearing glasses doesn't significantly affect how I'm treated or my ability to participate in society. As such, it is not classified as a disability. If I were talking to a wheelchair user who was experiencing a lot of frustration due to many aspects of society not being accessible, and needing to take a lot longer to do things that are easy and quick for people who don't have mobility disabilities, it would be unhelpful and dismissive for me to say 'Oh, we all have our disabilities - you have your wheelchair that helps you get about and I have my glasses that help me see! And we both have our abilities too! We are both differently abled!'
Thank you for your comments ,fineline.
I've never heard of 'colour blind' being used in any other way than to suggest that some people see as 'green' what others see as 'blue' and the person who has the minority view is described as 'colour blind'
It’s a very common expression on the west side of The Pond, often used in assertions like “we want to move to being a color blind society.” And it is indeed problematic as @fineline says, as it suggests a disinterest, however well-intentioned, in seeing all of a person.
Yes, it was from American friends that I heard it. They were telling me I was racist because they were saying that they don't know what colour their friends are, and I was saying 'Really? I do. I know their hair colour and their skin colour, because I see it.' So they thought I was racist for not being colour blind, and I was bewildered, because all the black people I knew openly talked about being black, so even if I didn't see it, I would know it because they say so, and it is part of their experience that they talk about.
Yes, the intent is to convey something along the lines of “I don’t see white people and Black people; I just see people,” which is fine up to a point. People are people. The problem is the implication that it means one is not interested in seeing or understanding the specific experiences that a person might have related to the reality that he or she is Black, or the challenges that Black people may have faced that white people don’t.
From my point of view, to say I’m color blind (in this sense) to a Black person means I choose not to see and appreciate all of who they are.
Once in a forum on goodreads, I mentioned my autism because it was relevant to my interpretation of the book we were discussing (I was suggesting that possibly Thoreau, because of the way he describes his whole thinking process in Walden, may have been on the autism spectrum). One American guy got quite insistent that he didn't care if I was autistic, that he wasn't interested, that it made no difference to how he saw me as a person, that he sees everyone as the same and treats everyone the same, black or white, male or female, autistic or not autistic, etc. And I wasn't quite sure how to take that - he seemed to be saying it as a point of pride, to show he wasn't prejudiced, but it seemed an odd way of doing it, as it came across as kind of trying to silence me, to be saying 'I don't want to know anything different or personal about you, I just want to see everyone in the same comfortable way I choose.' And it also kind of came across like he saw autism as a bad thing which would make him see me as inferior if he acknowledged it. I found it quite strange anyway!
Comments
I might get roasted for this, but...
I suppose I can sort of see the point of writing *Deaf* with a capital D (though I don't know anyone who actually speaks in capital letters), but to extend the same practice to the condition - or any other condition, come to that - seems a bit precious.
I'm lame. I could be described as Lame, or one of the Lame, but saying that I suffer from Lameness is rather odd, IMHO.
(I suppose the exception would be where the root has been forgotten, e.g. boycott and possibly bowdlerise.)
which reads to me as if deafness is referring to the hearing-loss condition and should be lower case.
So I am Lame (or lame, as I prefer the lowercase version), but suffering from lameness?
Except for those with poor sight, I imagine.
My uncle in Paris is VERY clear that some people are congenitally French.
Yes, wise words.
ISTM, though, that the problem is in knowing when to capitalise, and when to use lowercase...whatever one does seems bound to inadvertently upset or offend somebody.
Where I’m from, and absent other contextual clues, “First of all it’s Deaf, not deaf,” would likely be taken not so much as rude or impolite as such, but rather as lecturing or know-it-all, or at least short and perhaps dismissive. And it could easily carry an implied “and why don’t you know that already?” It would likely not be how one would phrase something if the desire was for the person on the receiving end to not feel judged.
I fully recognize that perception may not at all how match intention, but that’s a challenge on a forum like this.
The reality is that kind of directness or briefness works in some cultural contexts and doesn’t work in some others.
I think there's a fine line between lecturing and hectoring, and details of someone's word choice can push someone else's perception over the line. So whilst you might think that three people's comments were equally brusque, someone else might think one of them stood out as being quite rude.
I think the reality of an asynchronous discussion format is that people tend to put more context and explanation into their posts, for two reasons:
1. It takes too long to have a back-and-forth with someone asynchronously to figure out what they know, and what they need explaining.
2. Posts are read by a lot of people, so even if you know the person you're responding too knows something, the thread's wider readership might not.
And I’ve been on the Ship long enough—and lived long enough—to have learned that what I would reasonably perceive as rude if someone where I live were to speak to me that way may not be seen as rude at all in other places. So again, I generally presume good faith.
But I do notice when other shipmates from the same general place as the poster also find something rude.
As this thread isn't in Purgatory, maybe we could focus it a bit more on Deaf people's own preferences about the language they'd like people to use and how they prefer to have sign language regarded and discussed?
Cheers
L
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
Which is what I intend to do.
FWIW the use of the word 'suffering' in relation to any form of disability is pretty controversial too. The bottom I line, I suppose is about using the terms the person you are conversing with is comfortable with - but it is often not universally clear. To which I know folk will respond with 'ask then, don't assume'.
However, I think part of the issue is that a) one might also assume that someone doesn't want their disability to be the focus and beginning of every interaction they have, b) you may be speaking/writing in the belief that the usage you are adopting is universal because that is all you have encountered to date and c) you may have habits of speech/writing that you are barely aware of (that you may well need to change but have not yet succeeded in doing so) - phrases such as 'wheelchair bound' for example.
All that said, I am not sure that I agree it is always the case that the most recent generation's choice of usage is the universal the default usage. As a gay woman I grew up with queer as a slur, some people have 'reclaimed' it but I still wouldn't be massively comfortable with people describing me as queer.
A lot of the posting about Deaf as a concept on this thread reads as if the experience of people with acquired deafness, or partial rather than total hearing loss, is somehow less valid or important and I don't think that is true.
Families with both Deaf and hearing members can choose to be part of the Deaf community to support the Deaf members - because it is a whole lot easier signing than trying to sign and speak, as there is such a mismatch between the languages that that only really allows augmented speech, where whoever is speaking/reading is signing the important words, but that is very stilted grammatically in sign language. Especially as the difference between some signs is the emphasis used in producing them - rain for example. Differences between that the Deaf community are things like houses or places of accommodation and places of interest need visual alarms to be safe for Deaf people and people need signing to be understood. (Although I am aware of profoundly deaf children being taught to speak within Deaf schools so they can ask for help in a hearing world.)
I am also aware of hearing children with speech and language processing difficulties, including young children on the autistic spectrum, who find sign language the only way they can communicate.
People who have become deaf through old age or through an injury can be profoundly deaf, and also have needs to be addressed. Also some deaf children in hearing families may not be supported into the Deaf community. In those cases the deafness is likely to understood as a disability; it will be disabling as they are not in environments that support their needs without needing to hear.
I have worked with children with hearing impairments in mainstream settings. In one case I learned Makaton to support a younger child (whose deafness had been caused by whooping cough at 3 months), driving the child's mother to the same lessons. I used the Makaton to augment speech in the preschool I led at the time, where the child attended, and realised how many other children used the signing to understand what was going on. I haven't been using it as this area uses BSL and they are sufficiently different languages to not map accurately.
We also taught basic BSL to Guides recently - with the support of someone who signs as part of her job - and she was showing us the sign for Covid19.
Our school special unit used Makaton, but they didn't teach the rest of us. Is it a good idea to teach a second sign other than BSL or ASL? (Thinking about those people taught ASL not their native sign. And that maps on to other attitudes to mother tongues that have been in the news recently.)
But then I learn that BSL has dialects in different parts of the country.
Makaton is a simplified sign system (not a language) based on BSL, for people with learning disabilities, or other brain disorders, who may find language difficult. It is used in the UK with speaking English (not with its own grammar) to enhance people's understanding of English, by having visuals as well as audio. Basically to enhance people's ability to communicate when they have cognitive/language impairment. And sometimes within a school, for instance, signs are invented relevant to something new that needs a sign, so it will naturally vary depending on setting.
The term d/Deaf is sometimes used in writing to include both kinds. Here is another article, far more recent, written by an American woman, who was deaf from birth, but choose to have cochlear implants later in life (that info is from clicking on her name - the actual article is about big D Deaf and small d deaf, and when each are used.)
And here is a simple fact sheet, from the British Deaf Association, about terminology. Including the advice, which should be obvious, to ask the individual how they prefer to be described. It is different for different people. It's also important to be aware that, while people born Deaf may be proudly part of a Deaf community, and find it offensive if people see their deafness as an impairment, for people who become deaf later in life, it can be experienced as a loss, something very difficult for them to adjust to.
I may have used the word *suffering* subconsciously, because my lameness does cause me suffering - chronic (sometimes acute) pain, frustration at not being able even to totter around a shop...but I fully appreciate the point you're making.
All very helpful. Thank you.
From this, he was showing that oversimplification and black-and-white thinking can hinder the advance of disability studies. He gave as an example the different terminology that Brits and Americans decide is offensive or acceptable, and how as a result, Brits and Americans working in disability studies were refusing to work with each other. When in reality, if they found a way to work together, and share their expertise, the field of disability studies would advance further, and disabled people would benefit from this.
Though of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't be challenging ableism, and I agree with Pomona that 'inspiration porn' is a huge issue for disabled people. The irony is that often people are sentimentalising disability on the one hand, but then when faced with the awkward (for them) reality of disabled people, they get offended when the disabled person isn't this sweet, grateful person who loves the fact that they are inspired by them! I'm talking generally, of the world outside of the Ship, but it would be odd if such attitudes never happened here, because they have been the attitudes society has ingrained into people in my lifetime. I think the best way to overcome these attitudes is actually get to know disabled people, listen to them, let them challenge you, annoy you, inform you when you've said something stupid, and just be friends with them the way you're friends with anyone. It's very hard to sentimentalise anyone that way.
As the remark was addressed to me, I hope it's okay if I reply to this. The response was so direct and so brief there was actually no explanation as to why it was Deaf and not deaf. Being impolite is just an issue of whether one is a courteous person or not, which is arguably of no interest in a discussion. However, it wasn't so much the sense of being impolite that got up my nose. It was the simple fact of such a response being essentially useless in a discussion forum. The explanation didn't come until later on when the poster was challenged. I was, I think, supportive of what it seemed the poster was trying to do, in principle.
I expect I've grown too old and overly sensitive for these kind of discussions, anyway. I don't have the smarts to negotiate today's minefields of cultural appropriatness. And clearly being a person of goodwill is of no value any more, to say nothing about how irrelevant one's own experience might be considered on the issue, because the language doesn't fit. One isn't even worth the effort of educating, apparently, or wasting explanations on. I shall now return to the antediluvian rock from which I crawled under, and where obviously I should have remained.
Pain is a variable thing too. I’m experiencing both severe, acute and chronic pain at the moment and working with the pain management team to work on dealing with it. It’s fascinating. Our minds, brains, nerves and bodies are far more interconnected than I ever realised.
I’m using all sorts of accessibility tools at the moment and I’m incredibly grateful for them. I can’t imagine living with this (or other disabilities eg blindness) without modern computers and accessibility tools.
Earlier it was mentioned about disabled people supposedly having ‘superpowers’. My twin, who has been visually impaired from birth and attended a boarding school for visually impaired children, was always being asked if he had extra sensitive hearing because he couldn’t see. Of course he didn’t! But I’ve seen the opposite too, with people wanting to overprotect disabled people as they are seen as ‘vulnerable’. I once took a party of ophthalmic nurses to a school for visually impaired children and one nurse was horrified that the children were running around and said ‘Stop them, they might hurt themselves’. I replied, ‘Of course they’ll hurt themselves, they’re children’. When I thought about it later I considered how my experience of visual impairment was so different to her’s, mine had involved fighting and bickering with my twin as all siblings do, alongside annual gymkhanas where visually impaired children charged around on horseback putting flags in buckets. It had never occurred to me to treat a visually impaired child differently to any other. When I was an ophthalmic nurse, patients would remark at how naturally I guided them and I used to say that it was natural for me as I had been guiding since I was 3 years old.
I agree with you, and to me, that aspect is relevant to the discussion, and not a tone policing thing. For people to be on board with terminology, it's important to understand it, even if the understanding is simply 'The Deaf community have said they want to be addressed this way,' and a link as evidence. And it does seem to be more complex than simply always using a capital letter for the word 'deaf', which is what I hoped to convey through the links I provided. So it's not a simple case of 'It's Deaf, not deaf,' but a whole discussion about when big D Deaf and little d deaf are appropriate, and that discussion should of course be led by d/Deaf people, which is why I found articles written by d/Deaf people.
I hope that people for whom these usages are commonplace will spare a thought for those of us who are trying to pick our way through the said minefield without offending anyone...
If I don't hear something I usually ask the speaker to repeat what they said and explain than I have a hearing disability, Sometimes I ask them to speak more slowly too (which probably means it also about how I process sound).
I was tested when I was a child, but back then the loss wasn't considered enough for hearing aids - which were fairly primitive back then.
I did spend time as a volunteer at Van Asch School, the only school for Deaf children in the South Island of NZ. I wasn't there long, but I did gain some appreciation of Deaf Culture, having been woefully ignorant when I first went there.
New Zealand Sign is one of the 3 official languages here, the others being Maori and English.
...or, if not actual languages, means of communication IYSWIM.
My understanding is that the main ways of signing in the UK are BSL and Sign Supported English. Signed Supported English uses the signs of BSL but in the word order of English. Full BSL has its own word order and grammar.
There is another kind of signing* I learnt about, which I can't remember the name of, but it involves complementing lip reading by using hand signs to distinguish between phonemes that look the same in lip reading (like b, p and m). From the research I read about it, it works well once learned, and is really good for helping with literacy if a child's first language is English and not BSL (because literacy can be difficult for congenitally deaf kids if their first language isn't BSL or whatever sign language is used in their country), but not many people use it and it's quite difficult to learn.
But BSL is the only sign language I know of in the UK. Signed Supported English and this other signing system aren't sign languages, as such, as they aren't languages, but a way to complement spoken English. Same with Makaton.
Though I'm sure there are deaf people from other countries who move to the UK and are using their sign languages in the UK. And I see from googling that there is an Irish Sign Language, similar to French Sign Language, mainly used in the Republic of Ireland, but also sometimes used in Northern Ireland.
*Edited to add: I finally found it from googling. It's called Cued Speech.
One can both read/speak and sing at the same time,just as also in certain rites manual gestures are made at the same time as the words.
It seems to me cruel to say that kingsfold should not find this signing as uplifting,just because he is not ? able to use the language fully.
As a person who speaks five languages fluently I am always pleased when I hear people attempting to use a language which they do not fully understand and I share their joy when they manage to make some sense of something which someone has said,just as I feel as sense of elation if I manage to understand something in a language which I do not speak.
It is maybe something personal but I don't like the expression 'ableism',though I accept that it exists. We all have certain abilities,just as we all have certain disabilities in the sense that some of us are good at woodwork but tone deaf with music. Not all 'disabilities' are formally classified as such.
I once translated on these boards the Italian term 'diversamente abile' as 'differently enabled' and got my nose on a plate for daring to use such an expression.
And yet for 10 years I worked regularly with children who for the most part could not walk,could not talk, could not see properly and could not hear properly,indeed sometimes they could not swallow either. All our work was in trying to 'enable' those children to have as many experiences of life and to communicate with others to the best of their ability.
Simplified sign language was used for those who had some sight,but obviously there was never a need to discuss politics nor religious terms like transubstantiation.
Even those who had no speech and no sight could indicate appreciation of care and attention given to them.
Perhaps part of the reason is that discrimination against disabled people has tended to include a sort of pity, and a bit of sentimentalising, and sometimes a feeling of virtuous self-righteousness. So it's very difference from outright dislike or disdain for a group of people, or seeing them as bad people, and so harder to recognise. I think Pamono mentioned Stella Young's talk about inspiration porn - it's definitely worth a watch if you haven't seen it. Very humorous in how she deals with it, but also making serious points.
'Differently abled' is generally considered a bit of an ignorant and patronising terms these days, though the people who came up with it were well-intentioned. Perhaps it's a little similar to the term 'colour blind' being used by white people, to suggest they don't see the colour of their friends, that everyone is the same - it was meant in a well-intentioned way, but of course people of colour have since said that it's not helpful. They (unlike white people) are made aware of their skin colour all the time through various systematic racism in society, so pretending one isn't aware of colour isn't helpful. To be a genuine ally, one needs to actually be aware of the inequalities in society that people experience due to skin colour. And similarly the issues and inequalities people experience due to disability. So suggesting we're all a bit disabled, or that no one is disabled and we're all differently abled, isn't helpful from that perspective. It is also seen as suggesting that disabled is a bad word, something to be ashamed of, something that makes a person somehow inferior. Which is where the social model comes in handy, because then you are looking at how society is disabling people, and how to address this, to break down barriers.
It seems to me quite a basic thing that when a group of people say that they don't like a term being used to refer to them, and they explain why, that people should be open to this and respect their wishes. I think sometimes people are very quick to feel personally insulted by such things, rather than listening and taking on board and realising it's actually not about them at all. I've said plenty of insensistive terms, and used well-intentioned terms that people informed me were seen as offensive. We all do. Though I find myself more inclined to listen to people in the group that supposedly find it offensive, to hear what they really think, as people often speak on their behalf without consulting them, which is also a form of oppression. Ian Dury's song 'Spasticus Autisticus' is a case in point. It was banned by people weren't disabled, who didn't realise he was disabled himself, who didn't get the point the song was making, while plenty of disabled people got it and thought it was great.
I've never heard of 'colour blind' being used in any other way than to suggest that some people see as 'green' what others see as 'blue' and the person who has the minority view is described as 'colour blind'
While it might not be helpful to you to suggest that we all have our abilities and our disabilities,I think that it is nevertheless true. Some people have to fight more than others for their abilities to be recognised by others and those with physical or mental disabilities even more,but we should try to concentrate on what people can do rather than what they can't.
It's more about the definition of the term 'disability,' which is about the extent to which something causes significant difficulties in one's life. I am extremely myopic, and wear glasses to correct it. This is not a disability. If glasses didn't correct it, I'd be definitely registered blind, which would be a disability, but glasses correct it, so it's not much of an issue. Wearing glasses doesn't significantly affect how I'm treated or my ability to participate in society. As such, it is not classified as a disability. If I were talking to a wheelchair user who was experiencing a lot of frustration due to many aspects of society not being accessible, and needing to take a lot longer to do things that are easy and quick for people who don't have mobility disabilities, it would be unhelpful and dismissive for me to say 'Oh, we all have our disabilities - you have your wheelchair that helps you get about and I have my glasses that help me see! And we both have our abilities too! We are both differently abled!'
From my point of view, to say I’m color blind (in this sense) to a Black person means I choose not to see and appreciate all of who they are.