Terminology question

Beano

Inspired by story below what is the correct term to use? This is most definitely not a troll, i wasn't aware that the term used in the article is considered offensive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2591105/Outrageous-cruel-unnecessary-Deaf-couples-anger-American-Airlines-leaves-insulting-Deaf-dumb-note-attached-lost-luggage.html

rozeboosje

Good question. I'd like to know too. Firstly, the term "deaf" is not offensive at all. If you are unable to hear, you're "deaf".

Granted, the word "dumb" has a colloquial meaning that can be taken as an insult. But it's usually quite clear from the context and who you're referring to whether the word is in fact intended as such. When you use the word "dumb" to describe someone who is clearly able to speak, then it's clear that you're using the word with the intent to insult. But I have never, EVER, seen anybody referred to as "deaf and dumb" in any way that could remotely be taken as "insulting". I just don't get it.

deise_boi

Having worked with numerous deaf families over the years I can assure you that the labeling of 'deaf and dumb' is generally considered archaic and very offensive. It comes across as dismissive and implies that the person is stupid, which historically it did infer. In answer to your question... well there isn't really one. If needed, the most appropriate terms to use would just simply be 'hard of hearing' or 'deaf', however there are some in the community who have issues with that for varying personal reasons.

rozeboosje

deise_boi wrote: »

If needed, the most appropriate terms to use would just simply be 'hard of hearing' or 'deaf'

That only describes somebody who has problems hearing. What about somebody who has problems speaking?

deise_boi

Some would be ok with being called 'mute' . Others do have difficulty with that term, particularly if they have learned sign language to communicate. Again there's no one-fits-all term that everyone seems to be happy with. But it's best to avoid the blatantly offensive ones like the deaf-dumb term.

rozeboosje

deise_boi wrote: »

blatantly offensive

That's the point though - both Beano and myself are bewildered by this; for both of us it's the first time we've come across anybody considering that term "offensive" at all.

the_syco

Dumb can mean stupid, and mute can also mean stupid, as it was seen as the equal to dumb, as being unable to speak was seen as not bring bright. Although the terms are not meant to be offensive now, due to their history people will see such terms as offensive.

I think "vocally/speech impaired" and "vocally/speech challenged"?

rozeboosje

Hm. Really? I would be a tad ticked off if anybody called me "impaired" or "challenged" in any way whatsoever.

susiewoosie

The Irish Deaf Society has a list of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable terminology that you might be interested in

http://www.irishdeafsociety.ie/about/press-information.html

Please note - I do work for the IDS - I am only passing this on.

Susan

rozeboosje

Hi Susan,

But that makes sense. I have club feet and I have trouble walking. I wouldn't be happy if someone would call me "lame and blind", as I'm not blind at all. Similarly, "Deaf Mute" and "Deaf and Dumb" would be unacceptable to anybody who is deaf but perfectly able to speak understandably.

But what would you call somebody who really is deaf AND unable to speak understandably to a hearing person?

susiewoosie

Hi Rozeboosje - It would be up to the individual on how they wish to describe themselves,

The World Federation of the Deaf which the IDS is affiliated to recommends the terminologies as being:

Deaf
Hard of Hearing
Deafened

i.e. you can choose which one you feel best.

I myself am able to communicate both through Irish Sign Language and verbally - and am comfortable in describing myself as Deaf. (Big D to denote that I am culturally Deaf and do not see it as a disability)

We do not ask someone in a wheelchair to determine how disabled they are, nor do we ask a blind person what percentage of blindness they have.

Usually 'Deaf' means someone who uses Irish Sign Language

Hard of Hearing tends to mean someone who is slightly deaf and chooses not to use Irish Sign Language

Deafened usually means an elderly person who has become deafened in later life.

Again - its up to the individual.

There are some people who feel that 'hearing impaired' is comfortable for them - and again that is fine although for me personally, I would say that the person may not know the full meaning behind this title (apologies to anyone who might find that patronising)

No offence please to anyone with this post!

Susan (in my very own personal capacity)

rozeboosje

Susan, I think you're missing the point. I would consider "hearing" and "speaking" to be two different abilities. Each of the terms you suggest, whether it is "Deaf", "Hard of Hearing" or "Deafened" only gives me information about ONE of these two abilities: the ability to hear. It conveys nothing, whatsoever, about that person's ability to speak.

So again, what terminology do we use to convey a person's ability to speak - in a manner intelligible to a hearing person who has had no training in any form of Sign Language?

rozeboosje

In fact, a person who is Dumb (in the non-offensive sense of the word) may have no hearing problems at all. There are, for example, a number of brain injuries that can lead to a person being perfectly able to hear and understand spoken language, but to be utterly unable to use it him- or herself.

susiewoosie

If a person has no 'hearing' problems as you put it - then they do not fall under the category of Deaf/Deafness

They will have another name (of which there are many). I'm not a doctor and I am sure you can google for answers

rozeboosje wrote: »

In fact, a person who is Dumb (in the non-offensive sense of the word) may have no hearing problems at all. There are, for example, a number of brain injuries that can lead to a person being perfectly able to hear and understand spoken language, but to be utterly unable to use it him- or herself.

susiewoosie

Why do we need terminology to determine how a person speaks?

Each and every Deaf person has different abilities - There are some Deaf people who choose not to speak - not because they cannot physically speak but they choose not to.

Some have abilities but know they may not be understood by a hearing person.

I am only informing you of the 3 terminologies that are available to use to describe a persons Deafness.

Susan (in my own personal capacity)

rozeboosje wrote: »

Susan, I think you're missing the point. I would consider "hearing" and "speaking" to be two different abilities. Each of the terms you suggest, whether it is "Deaf", "Hard of Hearing" or "Deafened" only gives me information about ONE of these two abilities: the ability to hear. It conveys nothing, whatsoever, about that person's ability to speak.

So again, what terminology do we use to convey a person's ability to speak - in a manner intelligible to a hearing person who has had no training in any form of Sign Language?

rozeboosje

"Why do we need terminology to determine how a person speaks?"

Why do we need terminology to convey whether a person can hear or not? Or whether they can see or not? Or whether they can walk or not?

Because it may help improve your interaction with another person. Knowing whether another person is able to speak or not is an immensely useful piece of information. If I knew that before I were to meet such a person, for example, I would bring a laptop so they can type their responses, or a piece of paper and a pen.

Did I really just have to explain that!?

susiewoosie

A Deaf person is well equipped in this situation -
They will bring their own pen n paper, mobile (to text messages), inform someone via email that is their preferred method of communication.

I'm not going to seek out a terminology to inform someone that I cannot say my "SH" properly, that I cannot say the word spaghetti or hospital that is understood by a hearing person.

Generally the title DEAF refers to someone who is an Irish Sign Language user - who may or may not speak.

As for you 'having to explain that!?' - If you're going to get ratty when I am explaining in a non-confrontational way - I'm not going to participate anymore...

rozeboosje wrote: »

"Why do we need terminology to determine how a person speaks?"

Why do we need terminology to convey whether a person can hear or not? Or whether they can see or not? Or whether they can walk or not?

Because it may help improve your interaction with another person. Knowing whether another person is able to speak or not is an immensely useful piece of information. If I knew that before I were to meet such a person, for example, I would bring a laptop so they can type their responses, or a piece of paper and a pen.

Did I really just have to explain that!?

rozeboosje

susiewoosie wrote: »

If you're going to get ratty when I am explaining in a non-confrontational way

I'm getting ratty because you're not listening to what I'm asking you. Forget about a person's ability to HEAR in any way, shape or form. Forget about deafness in any of its forms. It has nothing to do with hearing ability.

This is the question:

What does one call a person who is unable to speak?

susiewoosie

I understood your question LOUD AND CLEAR.

I am telling you that there is no such title.

There are outdated titles such as mute - but this is NOT acceptable

You seem determined that there should be an answer.

What do you suggest?

rozeboosje wrote: »

I'm getting ratty because you're not listening to what I'm asking you. Forget about a person's ability to HEAR in any way, shape or form. Forget about deafness in any of its forms. It has nothing to do with hearing ability.

This is the question:

What does one call a person who is unable to speak?

rozeboosje

I'd be quite happy with "dumb". And I fail to see why this should be "unacceptable". Just like I'm quite happy to describe my own condition as "lame".

So somebody who is deaf AND who cannot speak is "deaf and dumb". No disrespect. Rather than having a hissy fit whenever somebody uses that phrase without intent to insult, we should look at why the prejudice that somebody who happens to be unable to speak should be somehow "mentally deficient" is still allowed to persist. Because I can tell you one thing: unless THAT underlying issue is addressed, no amount of choosing "acceptable" phraseology is going to help; it's just going to be the fast lane to turning that phrase into the next insult.

susiewoosie

The wording 'Dumb' has negative connotations,


Its not accepted by the Deaf community - so regardless of your belief, its still a highly offensive word


and no - I do not have an alternative. I personally don't believe such a word is needed.


Since the wording 'dumb' is no longer encouraged - no 'new' wording has come about - quite simply because I believe that 'Deaf' fits the bill - and if a Deaf person chooses to add in a 'by the way, I don't speak, I use ISL' - then so be it.


I say all this in relation to Deaf people who don't use their voices (since this is a Deafness boards page)

rozeboosje

So, Susie, let me get this straight.

"I believe 'Deaf' fits the bill"

So, according to you, somebody who suffers from Aphasia is "deaf"?

Really!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia

susiewoosie

A person who has Aphasia is not Deaf.

This is a Deafness thread page.

I am speaking in relation to DEAF PEOPLE only.

Again...in a Deafness thread.

I am not going to speak on behalf of people who have Aphasia.

Go to an Aphasia thread and ask for terminologies there.

I am not going to continue replying - you seem to be very aggressive and frankly I don't need to explain myself to you.

Susan.

rozeboosje wrote: »

So, Susie, let me get this straight.

"I believe 'Deaf' fits the bill"

So, according to you, somebody who suffers from Aphasia is "deaf"?

Really!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia

rozeboosje

No, this is not a "deafness" thread. Beano is clearly asking what would be an appropriate term to convey that a person is unable to ... BOTH ... hear and speak.

YOU've been trying to turn it into a "deafness" thread, and I've been trying to pull you back from doing so ever since.

rozeboosje

We use words to describe any common physical condition. Like using "lame" to describe mine. I know that the word "lame" has become a very widely used insult, but even when it's used to describe me, a person who actually IS (a little bit) lame, it's always pretty clear from the context whether the word is simply used to describe my condition - in which case it's not even a tiny bit "offensive", or to insult me in some other way. I post a comment on a forum like this, and someone says "lame", it's clear that they're not describing the fact that I can't walk with the effortless ease that most other people can walk with. The word "dumb" is exactly the same. The word itself is just that - a word - and it's how it's used and in what context that makes it an "insult".

Seriously, think about it. I could very easily use the word "sick" to insult somebody: "Boy, you're a sick puppy." - So the next time I'm struck down with the flu and I throw up all over the bathroom, should I get my panties in a twist because someone calls me "sick"? Of course not. That would be preposterous.

That deaf, dumb and blind boy sure plays a mean pinball"..... What a tragedy it would be if that had to be changed to "that deaf and blind boy who can't speak sure plays a mean pinball". And even then, "mean" could be interpreted as an insult.

But the most important point is, and remains this: you can't get rid of bigotry by "cleaning up" language. By all means, kick up a stink about the word "dumb" until nobody uses it anymore. But you can rest assured that whatever term people use to describe a person who is unable to speak - and of COURSE we need a concise term to describe such a person just like we still need "blind" to convey that a person can't see and "deaf" to convey that a person can't hear - whatever term people use THEN will soon become the next word the bigots will use to insult you and each other. Thinking otherwise would be sadly deluded.

rozeboosje

lilmona wrote: »

yes this is a thread under the "hearing and Deafness" tag scroll up and have a look.

Why don't YOU scroll up and read the original post. Beano had to pick a tag, and he picked "Hearing & Deafness" as it's the nearest in relevance to the question he was asking. But the question is clear. The couple in the OP were described as "deaf and dumb" so that other airport staff could act with a certain level of awareness to their condition which would have made life easier for everybody. Instead of showing a bit of appreciation for this effort, they got all in a huff because they didn't like the word "dumb", unable to see beyond the colloquial.

So yes, it's entirely appropriate of me to try drag this question back on track.

rozeboosje

Just to show you an example of what I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf-mute

"In the past deaf-mute was regarded as a socially acceptable term" - I would imagine that the term was first coined by somebody who, in all sincerity, was trying to spare the feelings of people who had problems hearing AND speaking. But since the underlying ignorance was not addressed, this has simply backfired, and it will continue to do so until it IS addressed. So now "deaf-mute" is considered "unacceptable". Keep painting over the cracks rather than addressing the real issue, and I can assure you that one day it will be socially unacceptable to simply call somebody "unable to speak". Mark my words.

rozeboosje

"You're obviously not even the slightest bit open to anyone else's opinion"

Not if it's a silly opinion, no. I mean, read your own statement: "their ability to speak is irrelevant".

LOL - troll

rozeboosje

Communication is a two way process, people. It's *extremely* relevant to know what channels of communication are or aren't open to you. To call that "irrelevant" is beyond ridiculous.

rozeboosje

Some people are deaf, and other people are what the Dutch call "Oost-Indisch Doof". :-)

Nobody, by the way, is insisting that we MUST use the words "dumb" or "mute" to convey a person's inability to speak. Give us any new term you deem inoffensive and we're quite happy to use it. Tell us the PC term is "X" and we'll quite happily call someone "Deaf and X" from here on in - even though I have expressed my reservations about trying to sanitise language without addressing the prejudices that render certain terms "offensive". But we'll do it, gladly.

Just don't tell us "it's irrelevant" and refuse to help. That's when you get sarcastic replies. And that's when we'll continue to use "Deaf and Dumb" or "Deaf-mute".

Get In There

You're getting yourself mightily worked up there boy. Relax. Deaf without speech. How's that for you boy? Go forth and affix labels to people if it makes you happy.

rozeboosje

It's not about affixing labels, it's about facilitating communication. An airport is a busy place, so anything that prepares people for potential communication problems will make the whole experience smoother for everybody. You like "Deaf without speech"? Ok, "Deaf without speech" it is.

joanmul

rozeboosje wrote: »

Susan, I think you're missing the point. I would consider "hearing" and "speaking" to be two different abilities. Each of the terms you suggest, whether it is "Deaf", "Hard of Hearing" or "Deafened" only gives me information about ONE of these two abilities: the ability to hear. It conveys nothing, whatsoever, about that person's ability to speak.

So again, what terminology do we use to convey a person's ability to speak - in a manner intelligible to a hearing person who has had no training in any form of Sign Language?

Speech impaired?

rozeboosje

joanmul wrote: »

Speech impaired?

Maybe - but I can actually understand that some people wouldn't like the word "impaired" because that does have a clear negative connotation to it. What do you think of "Get In There"'s suggestion? Fairly simple, and pretty neutral.

rozeboosje

test