Why the change in the forum name?

susiewoosie

Why the change in the forum name

"'Hearing impairment"?

A highly offensive to those within the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community

Can the forum title not just be:

Deaf, Hard of hearing and Deafened?

Lardy

Sorry, but I don't find it even remotely offensive, never mind highly offensive. The name you suggested is just a long way of saying exactly the same thing as the current name. Complete non issue really.

susiewoosie

You might not find it offensive but others do.

For the sake of being politically correct which is what this issue is about, the title should be reconsidered.

There is a large sector of the Deaf community who would not appreciate this title on a well known (Irish) discussion page.

As I said - you might not agree but it IS offensive to others.

looksee

Susiewoosie, I received your pm, but since the matter is being discussed here I will allow the community here to respond. I should point out that I am no longer a mod of this forum.

Myrddin

The forum name change was brought about, in order to help unify all the forums within the category that cater to disability/impairments in some fashion. We had Accessibility & Mobility & Disability, Hearing & Deafness, Carers & Caring, and Stuttering Stammering & Speech disorder all spread out around the category, isolated from each other.

So we set about finding a way to bring them all together, while keeping them unique in what they deal with. We've gone ahead & done that, and now all the similarly based subjects are more closely located (quite similar in what's happening physically in the primary care field, shifting everything to one, much more accessible, team based location). It is hoped information & accessibility will be much more intuitive, & help communities form if users are brought closer together. Someone browsing carers & caring now for example, might notice that the hearing impairments forum exists & get some use out of it, and so forth.

Regards the name change, by no means was any offence intended. The reasoning for it, was just to get away from the old, ill informed opinion that because someone has some form of disability, they're then not able to do the things able people do, or can't function the way able people do. So it is hoped that by removing the label of a particular disability, we're doing our part to convey the message that people are only disabled if society makes them disabled; they're perfectly able, but are able perhaps in a different way 'able' people are & it's our understanding of disability that needs to change.

Nobody is denying that impairments exist, of course they do, in many guises. But terminology & labelling are very important considerations when discussing disability. There is nothing inherently wrong with 'deafness' as a label, it does what it says on the tin per se. But many people interact with that label, in the fact that it's a 'deaf person' (label before person), as opposed to, a 'person with a hearing impairment'. It's only an impairment, they're perfectly able to function in daily life, it's not something that needs to be labelled.

Anyway, again, absolutely no offence was intended with the name change...we're just trying to do our part in removing stigma & labelling of people where possible...& it's not some know all attempt at political correctness.

susiewoosie

Myrddin wrote: »

The forum name change was brought about, in order to help unify all the forums within the category that cater to disability/impairments in some fashion. We had Accessibility & Mobility & Disability, Hearing & Deafness, Carers & Caring, and Stuttering Stammering & Speech disorder all spread out around the category, isolated from each other.

So we set about finding a way to bring them all together, while keeping them unique in what they deal with. We've gone ahead & done that, and now all the similarly based subjects are more closely located (quite similar in what's happening physically in the primary care field, shifting everything to one, much more accessible, team based location). It is hoped information & accessibility will be much more intuitive, & help communities form if users are brought closer together. Someone browsing carers & caring now for example, might notice that the hearing impairments forum exists & get some use out of it, and so forth.

Regards the name change, by no means was any offence intended. The reasoning for it, was just to get away from the old, ill informed opinion that because someone has some form of disability, they're then not able to do the things able people do, or can't function the way able people do. So it is hoped that by removing the label of a particular disability, we're doing our part to convey the message that people are only disabled if society makes them disabled; they're perfectly able, but are able perhaps in a different way 'able' people are & it's our understanding of disability that needs to change.

Nobody is denying that impairments exist, of course they do, in many guises. But terminology & labelling are very important considerations when discussing disability. There is nothing inherently wrong with 'deafness' as a label, it does what it says on the tin per se. But many people interact with that label, in the fact that it's a 'deaf person' (label before person), as opposed to, a 'person with a hearing impairment'. It's only an impairment, they're perfectly able to function in daily life, it's not something that needs to be labelled.

Anyway, again, absolutely no offence was intended with the name change...we're just trying to do our part in removing stigma & labelling of people where possible...& it's not some know all attempt at political correctness.

I appreciate no offence was deliberately caused, however no-one has answered my question with regard to changing the name of the forum group. If its a flat out no - the group name will not change, fair enough and I will not participate in this group again.

Both the Irish Deaf Society and World Federation of the Deaf (both national and International representatives of Deaf people) both consider the terminology "hearing impaired" as not being an acceptable term.

"Is it OK to use the term “deaf-mute”, “deaf and dumb” or “hearing impaired” in reference to a deaf person who can’t talk?
No, it’s no longer an acceptable term" http://wfdeaf.org/faq

and https://www.irishdeafsociety.ie/about/press-information/

I appreciate that there are Deaf, hard of hearing and Deafened people that choose to use other terminology to describe themselves (as is their right) but when a National Deaf organisation and an International Deaf organisation with consultative status with the United Nations tells you that 'hearing impaired' is not an acceptable term, then I think this is a good argument for the change of name of this group.

Myself, I refer myself as being Deaf and an Irish Sign Language user. Any impairments that I have are brought about society not providing me access. I am impaired when I have to fight for hearing aids, I am impaired when I have to pay for hearing aid batteries, I am impaired when I can't go see a film of choice at any cinema I want. I am impaired when I cannot relax and watch television in fear of the subtitles cocking up. I am impaired when an ISL interpreter does not turn up for a job they are booked in.

I am NOT impaired when I go to work with other Deaf people. I am NOT impaired when I hang out with my friends whereby we all converse in a language I fully understand.

Hearing IMPAIRED implies negativity, it implies that due to my level of hearing, I am IMPAIRED. It is society that impairs me, not my hearing.

joanmul

I find this dialogue extraordinary. I didn't even notice the change of heading and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with it.

Myrddin

susiewoosie wrote: »

Hearing IMPAIRED implies negativity, it implies that due to my level of hearing, I am IMPAIRED. It is society that impairs me, not my hearing.

This is exactly what we were trying to get across, but seems to have had the opposite effect to the one intended. Coming at being deaf as a form of disability (we're all on the spectrum of disability somewhere), we wanted to get away from the general understanding of deafness as an actual disability. To me, disability implies negativity & reinforces old, outmoded stereotypical views about people with impairments. You're absolutely correct in that society is the disabling factor when considering 'disability', and disability in itself as a concept, is a social construction (created by society in its response to disability).

Where you see impaired as a negative connotation with regards to being deaf, we actually felt it helped to distance the subject away from the old preconceived notions of deafness as a disability, & instead promoted equality & put the person first, rather than the label. I think we're essentially agreeing on the same points, it's just that our syntax doesn't line up. If impairment is considered a negative label by the organisations you mention, then perhaps we needs to readdress the name of the forum. It's absolutely not set in stone, & we're very aware of how important language is around these topics.

Have you any suggestions that might be more in line with labelling considerations around deafness (maybe I'm wrong, but I don't even feel comfortable saying 'deaf person', as I feel it puts the label first, ahead of the person. With the best of intentions, I'd automatically use the term 'person with a hearing impairment', which to me puts the person first, while also suggesting the person merely has an impairment, & is perfectly able to adapt to it).

Lardy

Jesus wept... Talk about PC gone mad!

Do these groups speak for everyone in the Deaf and HoH community? I think not, judging by the way their own statements are worded. They appear to label everyone who has a hearing impairment as Deaf. Now, this might be seen as offensive to someone like me who is HoH, and not Deaf. But then, I'm not a sensitive soul who gets offended on other peoples behalf. I have a hearing impairment, a disability. No amount of PC nonsense and wordplay is going to change that. Thankfully though, I have hearing aids that help me lead a normal life. And as an added bonus, I can just turn them off when someone is talking nonsense.

Get In There

Society needs to affix a label on me on account of me being deaf? Two can play at that game. "Sign language impaired" would be appropriate to those who don't use their physically able hands to communicate. Able but can't be arsed. That's an impairment. But no, society has to say it's the deaf person who has has spent years of speech therapy to use their "deaf" voicebox to communicate with them that is impaired even though the deaf person is going beyond their capabilities to communicate with them.

As for the appropriate terminology- "hearing impaired" nah not for me- i'll echo susie woosie's sentiments, the term carries negative connotations. I once saw a video/article on this (which for the life of me I cannot find) where it was suggested that the term be replaced by "profoundly visual" which carries far more positive connotations.

Myrddin

Get In There wrote: »

Society needs to affix a label on me on account of me being deaf? Two can play at that game. "Sign language impaired" would be appropriate to those who don't use their physically able hands to communicate. Able but can't be arsed. That's an impairment. But no, society has to say it's the deaf person who has has spent years of speech therapy to use their "deaf" voicebox to communicate with them that is impaired even though the deaf person is going beyond their capabilities to communicate with them.

As for the appropriate terminology- "hearing impaired" nah not for me- i'll echo susie woosie's sentiments, the term carries negative connotations. I once saw a video/article on this (which for the life of me I cannot find) where it was suggested that the term be replaced by "profoundly visual" which carries far more positive connotations.

It's getting away from labelling that was the driving force behind the name change, ie people viewing being deaf as a form of disability. It's very much recognised that it's society that needs to change in its views towards impairment/disability, not the other way around. It was thought that 'hearing impairments', suggested a broader, more equality based standpoint towards the subject, in contrast with 'hearing & deafness', which perpetuates some form of disability (again coming from the standpoint of advocacy toward removing the notion of disability = not able, & replacing it with something that suggests every bit able).

If this is being perceived as something that makes non deaf people more comfortable around deafness, then the message has been drastically lost in translation. I'll address the name of the forum with the higher ups so, & please accept my apologies for any offence that may have been caused; the name was changed with the best of intentions, & certainly not to promote labelling.

In terms of a suitable name for the forum, is there something that is universally accepted, & people will easily associate with deafness/hard of hearing etc? The original name of "Hearing & Deafness" seemed a bit vague, in that we'd like this forum to be a place of growth, unity & value to people.

susiewoosie

Myrddin wrote: »

In terms of a suitable name for the forum, is there something that is universally accepted, & people will easily associate with deafness/hard of hearing etc? The original name of "Hearing & Deafness" seemed a bit vague, in that we'd like this forum to be a place of growth, unity & value to people.

I would recommend "Deaf and Hard of Hearing"

My suggestion is based on recommended practise from the World Federation of the Deaf and is in no way intended to offend anyone who doesn't use this terminology.

susiewoosie

Lardy wrote: »

Jesus wept... Talk about PC gone mad!

Do these groups speak for everyone in the Deaf and HoH community? I think not, judging by the way their own statements are worded. They appear to label everyone who has a hearing impairment as Deaf. Now, this might be seen as offensive to someone like me who is HoH, and not Deaf. But then, I'm not a sensitive soul who gets offended on other peoples behalf. I have a hearing impairment, a disability. No amount of PC nonsense and wordplay is going to change that. Thankfully though, I have hearing aids that help me lead a normal life. And as an added bonus, I can just turn them off when someone is talking nonsense.

That's fair enough. I stated earlier that not everyone has to agree with the terminology I suggest. However if all Deaf and HOH people chose to 'knock off their hearing aids and do f*ck all; We'd have no ISL interpreters, No Deaf people going to 3rd Level colleges, No subtitles on TV, no subtitles in the cinema, etc.

Had it not been for the PC brigade, deaf people would still be known as Deaf and Dumb and Deaf mutes (unfortunately still a term that was used in the Indo and Irish Times yesterday)

I attended St. Mary's school for Deaf girls. Before my time, it was known as the Deaf and dumb school and during my time there it was known as the hearing impaired school -- its not anymore which shows that the school acknowledges its not PC and changed it.

(and for those eagle eyed googlers - there is still one school in Limerick that chooses to use "hearing impaired" - this has been noted and is hoped to be changed soon)

Myrddin

susiewoosie wrote: »

I would recommend "Deaf and Hard of Hearing"

My suggestion is based on recommended practise from the World Federation of the Deaf and is in no way intended to offend anyone who doesn't use this terminology.

Ok, many thanks for that. I'll give it a few days just to see if there's any other takes on possible new names, but failing a better one, we'll prob go with your suggestion.

susiewoosie wrote: »

deaf people would still be known as Deaf and Dumb and Deaf mutes (unfortunately still a term that was used in the Indo and Irish Times yesterday)

Jesus wept, seriously?

Myrddin

Forum has now been renamed, as per feedback in this thread. Thanks for the feedback all, & again, apologies where any offence might have been taken, it really wasn't intended.