NationStates Jolt Archive

My mother and father and I had a very heated discussion about this, so I thought you might find it interesting. Right now at the deaf college in Washington D.C, Gallaudet, students are protesting and rioting because of the appointment of the new school President, who apparently did not become deaf and start signing until she was in her 20s (or something like that). The students are saying they want their president to represent the deaf culture. (They also just plain don't seem to like her.)

There was also an uproar not long ago about a lesbian couple having a deaf baby on purpose and refusing to let doctors try to correct his hearing in the one ear that could be saved. Lots of people in the deaf community feel that cochlear implants and things like that are just tools that are contaminating the deaf culture.

I have a client who is deaf and she and her deaf husband had a hearing baby. They are happy for her and want her to have all the opportunities she can as a hearing person, and are actively trying to seek out ways to help her develop normal hearing language skills. They also sign to her. My client said that not all deaf people would be happy about it, but she doesn't feel that way. She got a cochlear implant to try to be able to hear her child's vocalizations.

What my parents and I argued about is whether there is really such a thing as a deaf culture. They say no, it's just a disability and it's wrong to try to make people that way. I say yes, because according to an idea of a deaf culture, they don't see themselves as having a disability, and culture is a matter of the social norms and practices within a community. Do the students have a right to protest? Should the parents of the baby have been forced to have the child's hearing corrected?

Article about the current Gallaudet protests:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050100770.html

The couple with the deaf baby:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,680616,00.html

Short wiki about deaf culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture

Opinions? Experiences?

There was also an uproar not long ago about a lesbian couple having a deaf baby on purpose and refusing to let doctors try to correct his hearing in the one ear that could be saved. Lots of people in the deaf community feel that cochlear implants and things like that are just tools that are contaminating the deaf culture.

Those parents should be ashamed of themselves. They put their desire for "deaf culture" ahead of their child's well being.

If that kid wants to be deaf later in life, he can deafen himself. His health and well-being should not be placed second to perpetuating some people's agenda for their "culture."


What my parents and I argued about is whether there is really such a thing as a deaf culture. They say no, it's just a disability and it's wrong to try to make people that way.

Whether or not it is a disability, it would be completely and totally wrong to try to make people that way.


I say yes, because according to an idea of a deaf culture, they don't see themselves as having a disability, and culture is a matter of the social norms and practices within a community. Do the students have a right to protest?

Of course the students have a right to protest. And deaf people have the right to view their community as just as valid as any other culture.


Should the parents of the baby have been forced to have the child's hearing corrected?

I believe parents should have the right to decide on their child's medical care. However, I believe what those parents did is reprehensible.

I have VERY mixed feelings. I believe in the parent's right to decide healthcare for their child. But I can't understand how they would PREFER for their kid to have problems interacting with the mainstream community.

Well of course there is a deaf culture. If there is such a thing as skater culture, smackhead culture and business culture there has to be deaf culture. But kids who can have their hearing saved should have it saved and then be issued with a free set of earplugs. Of course I also believe kids in poor countries should be saved from preventable disease and given a free vial of cholera culture so they can be part of dysentary culture if they wish.

I have VERY mixed feelings. I believe in the parent's right to decide healthcare for their child. But I can't understand how they would PREFER for their kid to have problems interacting with the mainstream community.


The decision made by this couple was not about a life-threatening condition. I do not agree that parents have the right to refuse treatment for their child's cancer, or any other condition that could potentially be fatal. But a parent does have the right to decide to treat or not treat a child's deafness, blindness, acne, et al...

And, I'm deaf in my right ear.

I figured the deaf baby would be the subject of the most heated discussions. It's interesting...what about parents who choose to circumcise their baby because of culture? They are mutilating the child, technically. There are very few guys who would choose to go through that as an adult, so deciding not to circumcise the baby so he could choose later pretty much means it's not going to happen. Wouldn't that be comparable?

The decision made by this couple was not about a life-threatening condition. I do not agree that parents have the right to refuse treatment for their child's cancer, or any other condition that could potentially be fatal. But a parent does have the right to decide to treat or not treat a child's deafness, blindness, acne, et al...

And, I'm deaf in my right ear.

Interesting! I feel the same way, actually, although I am not deaf. Do we have any other deaf or partially deaf people who could weigh in?

I figured the deaf baby would be the subject of the most heated discussions. It's interesting...what about parents who choose to circumcise their baby because of culture? They are mutilating the child, technically. There are very few guys who would choose to go through that as an adult, so deciding not to circumcise the baby so he could choose later pretty much means it's not going to happen. Wouldn't that be comparable?

I dont say its comparable. Its much worst to have your child deaf than circumcised, even though, i dont really agree with the circumcision in the babies. If they want to do it later, thats their business.
There is a deaf culture, and im happy deaf people praise it as a good thing, but priving their childs from audition is just pure ignorance.

I'm assuming the parents of the deaf baby in quetion were deaf. It didn't specify, but it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

I don't know. Is deafness even a disability? THat's a tough argument. There are definitely sensory gaps by not being able to hear. On the other hand, the sharpening of the other senses and increased awareness of them allows deaf people to sense things that hearing people don't.

I think that at the very least, deafness creates a different condition of learning and perception. When shared by a large enough group of people, yes. That's culture.

In the case of these parents, if their baby was born deaf, and they refused surgery that might have given their baby partial hearing, I can understand why they might not want their child to be burdened by learning and perceiving in a way contrary to his/her parents and neighbors.

However... "There was also an uproar not long ago about a lesbian couple having a deaf baby on purpose" What do they mean 'on purpose'? Did they do somethig to deafen their baby? If they did, then I don't understand at all. I'm actually sickened by the idea.

Regardless of one's view about these and other cases, I think it's safe to agree that people are nutty. :)

They are mutilating the child, technically.
How do you reckon that? It's certainly a unnecessary practice but then again so is being baptised. I've several friends who have gone through one or the other and it hasn't really affected their daily lives.

I figured the deaf baby would be the subject of the most heated discussions. It's interesting...what about parents who choose to circumcise their baby because of culture? They are mutilating the child, technically. There are very few guys who would choose to go through that as an adult, so deciding not to circumcise the baby so he could choose later pretty much means it's not going to happen. Wouldn't that be comparable?
I don't think it is at all functionally comparable. Having or not having a foreskin will have essentially no impact on the child's ability to function in public schools, the workplace, and most other stituations. On the other hand, lacking vision or hearing will make a tremendous difference for anybody who is trying to work or learn in current society. This is not to say it is impossible, or that it is necessarily a good thing that our society works this way, but it's the reality for now.

It's like the difference between amputating the tip of your kid's pinkie, versus having their legs removed. The pinkie might make some difference, and in a few specialized situations it might make a big difference, but lacking the ability to walk is going to make a much larger difference in a much broader range of situations.

EDIT: Also, I don't think it is appropriate to use "mutilating" to describe circumcision. I'm told that my tattoo is a "mutilation" of my body, as are my piercings, and I find that term to be needlessly inflamatory. Modifications of the human body are not necessarily mutilations.

Humph, as a Deaf studies student I feel very strongly on this point. All these people who are saying deafness is a disability and there is no Deaf Community (culture is a dufferent thing altogether but i beleive you were meaning community rather than culture) have clearly never met or talked to deaf people. The couple in question chose a deaf sperm donor to increase their chances of having a baby they did not 'deafen' their baby that would just be cruel.

Theres nothing wrong with deafness, would there be this uproar about a catholic school wanting a catholid headteacher?

EDIT: also IMO deafness is more a lack of ability than a disability, anyone whos seen the many ways that deaf people have to put them on a par with hearing people and the beautiful language that is Sign Language :fluffle: would not call them disabled

Humph, as a Deaf studies student I feel very strongly on this point. All these people who are saying deafness is a disability and there is no Deaf Community (culture is a dufferent thing altogether but i beleive you were meaning community rather than culture) have clearly never met or talked to deaf people. The couple in question chose a deaf sperm donor to increase their chances of having a baby they did not 'deafen' their baby that would just be cruel.

I'm relieved. That's perfectly okay by me. And thanks for clarifying that. :)

No problem

*rereads first post* oooh dont get me started on CIs, my whole family are deaf and I have very bad hearing myself and if someone tried to have me or my future kids Implanted I would spit on their shoes...I hate CIs lol (as you can tell)

No problem

*rereads first post* oooh dont get me started on CIs, my whole family are deaf and I have very bad hearing myself and if someone tried to have me or my future kids Implanted I would spit on their shoes...I hate CIs lol (as you can tell)
I certainly don't think anybody else should have the right to force medical treatment on you or your kids. But what if one of your kids wanted a CI? Would you allow them to get one?

If they wanted one then yes I would but CIs generally dont work on kids over the age of 5 so by the time theyre old enough to make up their own minds they'd be too old. the sideeffects far outweigh the benefits of having a CI

If they wanted one then yes I would but CIs generally dont work on kids over the age of 5 so by the time theyre old enough to make up their own minds they'd be too old. the sideeffects far outweigh the benefits of having a CI
Sounds totally reasonable to me.

Sounds totally reasonable to me.


Thank you lol, i think the problem is that CIs are seen as magic wand to take away deafness but theyre not at all. In fact an implantation is considered a huge and remarkable success if the implanted child is able to distinguish between voices which rarely happens, a successful implant is them being able to hear at all lol

No problem

*rereads first post* oooh dont get me started on CIs, my whole family are deaf and I have very bad hearing myself and if someone tried to have me or my future kids Implanted I would spit on their shoes...I hate CIs lol (as you can tell)

Do you mind my asking why?

Do you mind my asking why?


Nope....I think hearing people see CIs as a magic wand to cure deaf people which as ive said above isnt true plus I see them as hearing peoples attempts to 'cure' deafness which I am against totally, it just shows hearing peoples ignorance of deafness and the community that they would try and cure it. You ask any Deaf person if they would rather be hearing and they would say no, its like asking welsh people if theyd rather not be welsh to them lol. Plus CIs have massive potential sideeffects that I would not want to risk for anything

Thank you lol, i think the problem is that CIs are seen as magic wand to take away deafness but theyre not at all. In fact an implantation is considered a huge and remarkable success if the implanted child is able to distinguish between voices which rarely happens, a successful implant is them being able to hear at all lol
I also don't like the assumption that deafness is automatically something that needs to be corrected at all costs. Some people are prepared to go to great lengths to recover or preserve their hearing, but others don't feel that way. I think it's really bizarre that there are people who would force "treatment" onto individuals who do not want to be treated.

I think some "normal" people want to just "fix" deaf people so that society won't have to accomodate differences. This is pretty much the same kind of thinking as with people who want to "fix" homosexuals and make them straight.

Exactly lol, in fact Deaf people like Paddy Ladd (love him lol) say that 30 years ago, if the current gene therapy techniques had been available, scientists would have been using them to cure homosexuality lol but nowadays noone would dream of trying to do that so fingers crossed people will stop trying to fix deafness in a few years time too. He also compares the drive to eradicate deafness as like a Holocaust but I think thast going a little too far lol

Nope....I think hearing people see CIs as a magic wand to cure deaf people which as ive said above isnt true plus I see them as hearing peoples attempts to 'cure' deafness which I am against totally, it just shows hearing peoples ignorance of deafness and the community that they would try and cure it. You ask any Deaf person if they would rather be hearing and they would say no, its like asking welsh people if theyd rather not be welsh to them lol. Plus CIs have massive potential sideeffects that I would not want to risk for anything

Makes sense. Though I do think research in methods to repair hearing should be kept up for those people who would like their hearing. Even if that might just include people who lost their hearing later in life and want it back.

Then again, I'm of the belief that any physical 'disabilities' a person can have should be phased out of humanity in one way or another, either through correction or breeding it out. That includes deafness and my own nearsightedness.

It's not an idea I'd force on anyone else, though.

The funny thing is, I actually do research on the vestibular and auditory systems.

I am, of course, always delighted when we can generate new information about diseases or injury phenotypes, and even more delighted when we can get some leads about potential treatments or mechanisms to help deaf patients. I know that my hearing is extremely important to me, particularly since my vision is pretty damn crappy, and I would probably be willing to pursue some pretty radical treatment if I ever lost my hearing.

I don't think it's wrong to try to find medical treatments for diseases or injuries. What is wrong is assuming that everybody must want the same things out of life. It's wrong to assume that all people are willing to make the same sacrifices to get the same lifestyle. And it's downright fucked up to assume that other people MUST want to do things your way.

I do research because I want to expand our understanding and increase the options that patients can choose from. I'm damn pissed off when all my hard work gets corrupted and misused by people who just want to force uniformity on everybody around them.

I certainly don't think anybody else should have the right to force medical treatment on you or your kids.I don't entirely agree. Some parents deny their children medical treatment based on their beliefs, and in doing so might be endangering the wellbeing of their children. (e.g. even with something as simple as a vaccination.) It may be in the best interest of the children and the community if government forces treatment.

oh me too, I'm totally fine with hearing aids and operations etc but I just think it should be peoples choice

Also it just depends on your definition of disabled lol, Deaf people dont see themselves as disabled (though they have no problem getting disability benefit lol) so it would be hard for people to say 'oh no you're disabled come here so I can eradicate you' lol

"I don't entirely agree. Some parents deny their children medical treatment based on their beliefs, and in doing so might be endangering the wellbeing of their children. (e.g. even with something as simple as a vaccination.) It may be in the best interest of the children and the community if government forces treatment."



But deafness isnt endangering anyones wellbeing

I have no opinion in this matter, even though I can easily understand that there is a deaf community/culture. Sign languages are not some sort of poor facsimiles of vocal languages - they're vibrant languages in their own rights and as such are very potent in creating a sense of belonging, of culture, of unity. I have full understanding for deaf people fearing that they'd lose all that.

Personally, I also have an easy time sympathising with a group of people who refuse a "cure" for what society sees as an "illness" or "disability," as it wasn't that long ago at all that this was done to gay people.

I don't entirely agree. Some parents deny their children medical treatment based on their beliefs, and in doing so might be endangering the wellbeing of their children. (e.g. even with something as simple as a vaccination.) It may be in the best interest of the children and the community if government forces treatment.
I believe this is only appropriate if the child's life is in danger.

When it comes to more general issues of "well-being," I don't feel comfortable having those choices taken away by the government. "Quality of life" is subjective, and I believe that such subjective decisions should not be made by the government.

Exactly, for Deaf people deafness is a huge part of who they are....take away deafness and you take away a part of them

But deafness isnt endangering anyones wellbeing
I have to disagree with you there.

Plenty of people DO feel that deafness would endanger their wellbeing. "Wellbeing" is subjective. They are right, for themselves, just as you are right for yourself. Just because deafness decreases one person's wellbeing doesn't mean it automatically does the same for another person. Hell, the same person may view it differently at two different periods in their lifetime.

I have to disagree with you there.

Plenty of people DO feel that deafness would endanger their wellbeing. "Wellbeing" is subjective. They are right, for themselves, just as you are right for yourself. Just because deafness decreases one person's wellbeing doesn't mean it automatically does the same for another person. Hell, the same person may view it differently at two different periods in their lifetime.


I know what you mean but for me 'wellbeing' is more physical than mental, I can well see that it would decrease peoples quality of life if it wasnt handled correctly. Deaf peoples quality of life is being more diminished by lack of understanding etc from the rest of the population and the government thna it is by being deaf

I know what you mean but for me 'wellbeing' is more physical than mental, I can well see that it would decrease peoples quality of life if it wasnt handled correctly. Deaf peoples quality of life is being more diminished by lack of understanding etc from the rest of the population and the government thna it is by being deaf
Well, to use myself as an example, there would be no way to avoid a decrease in my wellbeing if I went deaf.

Music is a tremendous part of my life. I both play and listen to music as much as I possibly can. Being unable to hear music would be devestating for me. Because my vision is poor, I tend to identify people by their voices, and I have to rely on my hearing to give me cues about mood because I often cannot see fine changes in people's facial features or body pose. I also am so intently auditory that I experience panic attacks in sound-proof rooms because such situations make me feel "blind" (for lack of a better term). Kind of a funny story, really, because the first such panic attack occured when I went to see a therapist who had their office sound-proofed.

I am not exagerating when I say that, if I lost my hearing, I would probably question if my life was still worth living.

I think that my sense of hearing is far more important to me than is the case for most people, so I may not be an especially good example. But I do know that no amount of "handling" my deafness could ever change the fact that it would be a crushing loss to me.

I'm assuming the parents of the deaf baby in quetion were deaf. It didn't specify, but it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

In the case of these parents, if their baby was born deaf, and they refused surgery that might have given their baby partial hearing, I can understand why they might not want their child to be burdened by learning and perceiving in a way contrary to his/her parents and neighbors.

However... "There was also an uproar not long ago about a lesbian couple having a deaf baby on purpose" What do they mean 'on purpose'? Did they do somethig to deafen their baby? If they did, then I don't understand at all. I'm actually sickened by the

The article specifies that they sought out a congenitally deaf man to be the sperm donor with the goal of producing a deaf child like themselves. And yes, the mother and her partner are deaf. The child was born mostly deaf, but doctors said he could have medical intervention to restore hearing in one ear. They refused, even though the doctors said the child's hearing would only get worse.

How do you reckon that? It's certainly a unnecessary practice but then again so is being baptised. I've several friends who have gone through one or the other and it hasn't really affected their daily lives.

Baptism does not require the altering of the physical body, as far as I know. (Does it?) But you're right, it's not really comparable.

EDIT: Also, I don't think it is appropriate to use "mutilating" to describe circumcision. I'm told that my tattoo is a "mutilation" of my body, as are my piercings, and I find that term to be needlessly inflamatory. Modifications of the human body are not necessarily mutilations.

Well, depends on the modifications. Mutilation is a medical term, not intending to be inflammatory.

Nope....I think hearing people see CIs as a magic wand to cure deaf people which as ive said above isnt true plus I see them as hearing peoples attempts to 'cure' deafness which I am against totally, it just shows hearing peoples ignorance of deafness and the community that they would try and cure it. You ask any Deaf person if they would rather be hearing and they would say no, its like asking welsh people if theyd rather not be welsh to them lol. Plus CIs have massive potential sideeffects that I would not want to risk for anything

Yeah, my client uses an implant but it doesn't seem to do much for her, I think she can only hear/distinguish certain sounds.

What sort of side effects would it have?

Well, depends on the modifications. Mutilation is a medical term, not intending to be inflammatory.
Doctors do not, as a rule, use "mutilation" in the clinical setting. To mutilate means to cripple, to disfigure, or to make imperfect. Crippling may be something somewhat objective, but "disfiguring" or "imperfect" are much more subjective and touchy areas. As a result, "mutilation" is an emotionally-charged term that doctors are discouraged from using, though naturally they human beings and may still use the term casually.

Well, to use myself as an example, there would be no way to avoid a decrease in my wellbeing if I went deaf.


Not to mention safety. My client has had to raise a child as a deaf person. There are devices now that allow you to "see" when your baby is crying in the next room, but what if she pulls something down on top of her? You wouldn't hear a crash. As for a deaf person's personal well-being, there are a lot of things that alert us to danger that are completely auditory. There have been a lot of robberies and rapes at Gallaudet, and these people can't yell for help or be heard if they did.

Doctors do not, as a rule, use "mutilation" in the clinical setting. To mutilate means to cripple, to disfigure, or to make imperfect. Crippling may be something somewhat objective, but "disfiguring" or "imperfect" are much more subjective and touchy areas. As a result, "mutilation" is an emotionally-charged term that doctors are discouraged from using, though naturally they human beings and may still use the term casually.

Oh alright, I thought it was still just a regular medical term for altering the body. Thanks.

Yeah, my client uses an implant but it doesn't seem to do much for her, I think she can only hear/distinguish certain sounds.

What sort of side effects would it have?

well...anything from mild brain damage ( i think). nerve damage/facial paralysis, loss of residual hearing, meningitis, MRSA, the skull rejecting the implant and not to mention the dangers of anaesthatising infants and bacteria entering the brain. Not to mention the bullying they would receive, maybe as much as they would have for being deaf but it would make them more of a visible target

EDIT: technically they can yell for help, they just might not be heard though

Oh alright, I thought it was still just a regular medical term for altering the body. Thanks.
No worries...I just happen to work at a university medical center, and I've had to rub elbows with med students for the last couple of years. Those kids get like 5 semesters of ethics and sensitivity training.

No worries...I just happen to work at a university medical center, and I've had to rub elbows with med students for the last couple of years. Those kids get like 5 semesters of ethics and sensitivity training.


...good.

...good.
The only sad thing is that right now it seems to be more about avoiding lawsuits than it is about actually BEING ETHICAL or BEING SENSITIVE. Most of them are decent human beings who want to be ethical and sensitive any how, but some of them come away with the message that "ethics" is nothing more than a set of rules you follow to avoid getting sued.

Which relates back to this topic. Most people are well-meaning and decent, and don't want to do cruel things to others. But there are always some who are only kind insofar as the law requires them to be, and they're willing to violate other people whenever it is legal for them to do so. They see deaf people as "broken," and don't want to bother to learn otherwise.

There is a distinct Deaf culture that are very offended by being refered to as impared, they don't think it is a disability at all and don't want their children to hear because they are afraid of them not wanting to be in the deaf culture. If you want to be deaf then you are welcome to it but if any child wants a CI they sould have the right to have their hearing corrected regardless of their parents protest, I know ASL quite well, I spoke to a deaf man about this Galadet issue Wensday and he also feels she dose not represent the deaf culture well.

No I dont think a hearing person could ever represent the Deaf Community totally but if she had the right people around her then she could do almost as good a job. After all I dont know from experience that eating a lightbulb hurts but having spoken to someone who has eaten one I know that a lightbulb hurts very well. I hate the elitist inverted snobbery in the deaf community, i think hearing people should be included and accepted in the community. After all how is the communuty going to grow if it just confines itself to a small core of people?

No I dont think a hearing person could ever represent the Deaf Community totally but if she had the right people around her then she could do almost as good a job. After all I dont know from experience that eating a lightbulb hurts but having spoken to someone who has eaten one I know that a lightbulb hurts very well. I hate the elitist inverted snobbery in the deaf community, i think hearing people should be included and accepted in the community. After all how is the communuty going to grow if it just confines itself to a small core of people?

Eating a lightbulb? Are you sure they didn't say they put a lightbulb in their butt? Apparently that happens a lot.

Look at that, I think I just started spamming my own thread. ("You know you've been on NS General too long when...")

thing as a deaf culture[/B]. They say no, it's just a disability and it's wrong to try to make people that way. I say yes, because according to an idea of a deaf culture, they don't see themselves as having a disability, and culture is a matter of the social norms and practices within a community. Do the students have a right to protest? Should the parents of the baby have been forced to have the child's hearing corrected?

Opinions? Experiences?

I made friends with a deaf guy at a conference a few months back and have kept in sporadic contact with him via MSN since then, and he was the first to sensitise me a bit to the idea of 'big-D Deaf' culture as opposed to 'small-d deaf' people, and I agree that people who are deaf have all those wonderful rights to association and to have identified a culture that is the product of their shared experience. The question of prohibiting doctors from salvaging the hearing of babies, though, is pretty sensitive. I think the Deaf standpoint is that if a child is losing their hearing, they're meant to be deaf and medical intervention is against nature somehow-- that they aren't "losing their hearing" so much as they're acquiring deafness. It's touchy because the counter-argument is based on the presumed superiority or "normalness" of being able to hear. We have a hearing-preferential culture, so not be able to hear is seen by us as an impairment. And in terms of hearing a phone ringing, a train coming, or a bear stalking you, it is a disadvantage. So... if I was somehow in the position of having to make the decision for a child, I guess my preference that my kid be able to hear the bear, even though he or she would be denied their place in a culture they may have been meant for.

Being unable to hear is not a culture. In fact, refusing to associate with people who can hear sounds more like a prejudice. And refusing to let one's children hear is abominable.

I made friends with a deaf guy at a conference a few months back and have kept in sporadic contact with him via MSN since then, and he was the first to sensitise me a bit to the idea of 'big-D Deaf' culture as opposed to 'small-d deaf' people, and I agree that people who are deaf have all those wonderful rights to association and to have identified a culture that is the product of their shared experience. The question of prohibiting doctors from salvaging the hearing of babies, though, is pretty sensitive. I think the Deaf standpoint is that if a child is losing their hearing, they're meant to be deaf and medical intervention is against nature somehow-- that they aren't "losing their hearing" so much as they're acquiring deafness. It's touchy because the counter-argument is based on the presumed superiority or "normalness" of being able to hear. We have a hearing-preferential culture, so not be able to hear is seen by us as an impairment. And in terms of hearing a phone ringing, a train coming, or a bear stalking you, it is a disadvantage. So... if I was somehow in the position of having to make the decision for a child, I guess my preference that my kid be able to hear the bear, even though he or she would be denied their place in a culture they may have been meant for.


That's because being able to hear -is- normal, just as much as having two arms is normal. I really don't understand what their viewpoint is or why they have it; just because there's a bunch of deaf people in the world doesn't mean there's a deaf culture - do they have their own country? Their own religion? Their own beliefs? They're not a culture, they're a community. A part of a larger population, a collection of people who happen to have a similarity - they're no more a culture as the mass of people who have "beauty marks" are a culture. It's ridiculous.

They can be a culture, anything can really. However, so long as hearing is an ability and deafness is a lack of it, it's technically a disability.

That's because being able to hear -is- normal, just as much as having two arms is normal. I really don't understand what their viewpoint is or why they have it; just because there's a bunch of deaf people in the world doesn't mean there's a deaf culture - do they have their own country? Their own religion? Their own beliefs? They're not a culture, they're a community. A part of a larger population, a collection of people who happen to have a similarity - they're no more a culture as the mass of people who have "beauty marks" are a culture. It's ridiculous.

It really is ridiculous. I saw a programme recently where a bunch of deaf people were haveing a serious debate about whether or not people with cochlear implants should be excluded from the deaf community. Its like they want to separate thems from normal society, and actually get offended if we Don'd discriminate against them. Whenever we try to integrate them they accuse us of contaminating their culture, but the way they treat deaf people who want to be part of regualr society is just plain shabby. I'd tell them so but even if they could lip read theyd probably fucking ignore me.

I think there can be, and are, sub-cultures. Just like there are sub-species in the biological context.

Still, the "uber"-culture is going to trump the sub-culture in most of the administrative aspects of life.

There are even sub-cultures within the sub-culture of "Deaf People", as evidenced by such terms as AMERICAN Sign Language.

So, yes the relationship that deaf people have to the world is different to that of hearing people. I think the usefulness of this only applies when the insights gained by the differences are SHARED rather than used as justification to separate, apportion or exclude.

It seems to me that the collection of deaf people who push to be apart from the rest of society just for the sake of being apart of them are doing nothing short of being ignorant and prejudice.

There is a distinct Deaf culture that are very offended by being refered to as impared, they don't think it is a disability at all and don't want their children to hear because they are afraid of them not wanting to be in the deaf culture. If you want to be deaf then you are welcome to it but if any child wants a CI they sould have the right to have their hearing corrected regardless of their parents protest, I know ASL quite well, I spoke to a deaf man about this Galadet issue Wensday and he also feels she dose not represent the deaf culture well.

Every page of this thread makes the touchiness of the issue more and more clear because I can't help thinking about it in the same context of my being gay. If my parents found out before or just after I was born that I was gay and they could have had me 'changed' somehow to make my life 'easier,' as informed by the idea that in a heterosexist culture being straight would be easier than being gay and 'disadvantaged,' would it have been right for them to do so? I'm sure they would have preferred that I be straight and part of straight culture instead of 'gay culture.' But I wouldn't change, if it was a choice that I had to make. I'm glad I was born the way I am, and I can't imagine being different. I don't even really care to imagine if I'd been straight, it's too alien to me, even though I'm immersed in a whole world that's mostly straight. As for my 'culture,' the gay community certainly has its issues and imperfections (just as straight society does), and being part of it may put me at a 'disadvantage' in the larger society (no serious problems encountered so far, but maybe I've just been fortunate, since I know people who've been kicked out of home or beaten up or more), but I've found a lot to value and cherish in my gay peers. I don't know that I'd have ever learned to express myself the way I do, and be as close to my friends as I am, if I'd been straight. I certainly don't think I'd be as aware of minority issues and power-abuse, or of the politics of dissent and liberation, if I'd been straight. So in that context, I wouldn't advocate medical intervention to 'correct' things that might be a disadvantage in the eyes of the majority of society.

But then I think about the bears, and how a deaf person in the woods wouldn't hear them coming, and how I can't think of how deaf people in isolation would compensate for that. If I had to make the choice for a child I'd really be torn... I'd like my kid to be able to hear the bears. And I'd want to be able to communicate with my kid, and I don't know if I could learn sign language as well as they would have to. I'd want my kid to have every advantage possible in a society that had so many inequities. But then I think back to how my parents would have said the same if they could have made me straight, part of the 'advantaged' world as they had experienced it.

It's hard to sort out, and I'm not sure there is a right answer... but the closest I can come to an answer that satisfies both sides in my mind is let the kid grow up the way they are-- arguably, the way they're 'meant to be'-- and when they're old enough to understand that they could choose an alternative-- ie. a hearing implant (or in my case, I could have faked straight the rest of my life), then let them choose. If they want to have their bodies modified to let them hear, then they can make an informed decision for themselves.

Every page of this thread makes the touchiness of the issue more and more clear because I can't help thinking about it in the same context of my being gay.

Eh, maybe some parallels, but homosexual isn't really a disability. You don't lose the ablitlity to do something because of it.

That's because being able to hear -is- normal, just as much as having two arms is normal. I really don't understand what their viewpoint is or why they have it; just because there's a bunch of deaf people in the world doesn't mean there's a deaf culture - do they have their own country? Their own religion? Their own beliefs? They're not a culture, they're a community. A part of a larger population, a collection of people who happen to have a similarity - they're no more a culture as the mass of people who have "beauty marks" are a culture. It's ridiculous.

And it comes back to the question of the value of "normal." Is what's "normal"-- that is, the condition of the majority, whether that majority is 50.1% or 99.9%-- somehow also "right?" Or is it simply right for that majority, and for the minority the way they are is also right? An *awful* lot of straight people would tell me that they're "normal" and that therefore I should be like them, or at least that I should want to be. I'm immersed in their world, in a society that clearly favours them because that's the way they as the majority built it, but I'm happy the way I am and wouldn't want to be anything else. And my 'otherness' from that society makes me, in a way, belong to the gay 'culture,' whether I always like my peers or not.

I'm reminded of a story my blind history professor handed out to my class last year-- to try and sensitise us to the contributions 'disabled' people have made to history-- about one sighted man who wakes up in some imaginary country where everyone else is blind, and of course, coming from a society where sightedness is "normal" he doesn't see the people around him as having their own culture, he figures they're just a bunch of disabled people deluding themselves into thinking they have something special, and that they should all take their lead from him-- now the most 'advantaged' person in their country-- and put him in charge because he's "normal." But once he starts to realise that they've modeled their society to accomodate their own abilities and needs, and that he doesn't know how to function in a land where (for instance) *everything* is written exclusively in braille, he finds out that he's pretty powerless in their community.

The point is that everyone-- when surrounded be enough other people like them-- think that they're "normal," so that becomes the standard by which they construct their society and by which they judge others. But what's most common isn't necessarily 'right,' because some things aren't subject to judgement of right or wrong. Some things are just a manifestation of diversity, which is entirely natural, and the 'disadvantage' of the minority is not a real, objective disability so much as it's a function of their being surrounded by a majority, which always sees itself as "norma." So the minorities have to compensate-- find ways to either adapt or to protect themselves from the abuse or the neglect of the majority (and there have certainly been abuses towards deaf people in the past-- some schools use to punish deaf children for trying to learn and communicate with each other in sign), and those common adaptations and experiences do become the foundation for a unique (sub-)culture.

Eh, maybe some parallels, but homosexual isn't really a disability. You don't lose the ablitlity to do something because of it.

Well, I do lose some *social* functionality if, for instance, I want to rent an apartment from a "normal" straight person who doesn't approve of gay people, or I want to get my partnership certified and the only person at the government office that gives marriage liscences is a "normal" straight person who thinks I should go repent or something :-P Physical function isn't the only thing to consider, unless you live alone on a desert island or in a cave. As long as you're a part of society, your social status can definitely be an impairment, if you run up against people who afford you equal respect and treatment. Not that I personally have had negative experiences that I can recall, but I know for a certainty that if I went to the wrong place, found myself among the wrong people, my being gay could put me in the ICU. I'm scared to death of rednecks. :) But anyway, digression notwithstanding, a lot of straight people (the "normal" majority) see me as somehow disabled, and whether I think I am, or you think I am, if they're in a position of any power over me, I'm at their mercy.

Well, I do lose some *social* functionality if, for instance, I want to rent an apartment from a "normal" straight person who doesn't approve of gay people, or I want to get my partnership certified and the only person at the government office that gives marriage liscences is a "normal" straight person who thinks I should go repent or something :-P Physical function isn't the only thing to consider, unless you live alone on a desert island or in a cave. As long as you're a part of society, your social status can definitely be an impairment, if you run up against people who afford you equal respect and treatment. Not that I personally have had negative experiences that I can recall, but I know for a certainty that if I went to the wrong place, found myself among the wrong people, my being gay could put me in the ICU. I'm scared to death of rednecks. :) But anyway, digression notwithstanding, a lot of straight people (the "normal" majority) see me as somehow disabled, and whether I think I am, or you think I am, if they're in a position of any power over me, I'm at their mercy.

Course, by that reasoning, everything about you is a disability, no? Because I'm male, I'm not allowed to go into the girls bathroom and prove they have a couch...*grumblestupidrestroomfascistsgrumble* Meh, whatever >_>

Wow. Thanks Eras for showing me.

I was born Deaf to Deaf parents. There is most definitely a Deaf culture that is very different from hearing culture. It would be very difficult to try to explain it in this limited space. The issue of deafness becomes an issue when a deaf baby is born to hearing parents. Hearing people think that deafness is a great disability and will hold you back forever; that is not true.

If I were at Gallaudet University I would be protesting as well. No one who was not born Deaf should be the President of that University. Although I did not choose to go to college there, I understand completely from where the students are coming. There was a similar protest in the 80s when a Deaf person was not chosen as President then; in the end he got the job.

I had the opportunity to have a cochlear implant last year. Despite my parents' opposition I got it; although it wasn't until my brother was wounded in Iraq that they communicated to me at all. I have written about the experience on my blog at http://www.joshuastime.com. I didn't get it because I felt somehow incomplete or impaired; I am not. I got it because in this world you cannot reach your full potential if you are Deaf or otherwise considered "disabled" because it falls outside the societal construct of "normal." Society proscribes that it will make it difficult for non-hearing people to interact successfully. Some of the posters in this thread demonstrate the prevailing attitude that hearing is "normal" and that if you don't want to fit in or won't, then somehow you are the problem, when in reality it is a culture that is so narrow and exclusive that is the problem. Those who say there is no Deaf culture, or that by wanting to even have a Deaf culture we are being discriminatory, you need to open your eyes and look around you. The reason you don't see more Deaf or disabled people in your social sphere is that there is no room for them, no willingness to make accomodations on a regular basis. You would freak if you had to go into a bank and had to sign or write down what you needed to get service. How f***ed up and arrogant is that?

My son was born on April 21 of this year. It turns out that he is Deaf. While his mother, who is hearing, is upset by this (and that is an understatement), I am fine with it. Will I give him a CI? I will wait until he is old enough to choose for himself. Should he want one, then he will have it.

With all due respect, being gay is nothing like being Deaf. While it is something you are born with, the societal repercussions and limitations are usually not as severe. The first choice for you to go to school is not a Gay School like a Deaf School is for Deaf children; you are not steered towards mundane job choices because you are gay. You are socially stigmatized at times just as Deaf people are, but you generally have more options open to you.

If I had more time, I would explain more. Maybe I will come back later.