Is it proper to use the term "overcame deafness?"

Good question. Deaf is deaf and hearing is hearing. For a heard of hearing person, most of it has to do with which culture they primarily belong to and their usage of ASL as their primary language.

A good example is one of my Deaf instructors. Medically, she is considered hard of hearing. However, she was raised deaf in that she used ASL as her first language. As far as we were concerned for a long time she was completely deaf. We only found out later that she is medically considered hard of hearing. Now that we have reached the end of the semester, we realize that she can hear more than we ever thought. She can tell when people in the class are voicing (of course, she can't hear what anyone is saying.)

So even though there is a small level of hearing there for her (and I have no idea what "percentage" she can hear in the one ear), she consideres herself to be deaf as that is the culture that she most associates with, based upon her upbringing.

 

So what matters in being placed in a category is what you consider your situation if you have significant hearing loss, such as your instructor? Would the subject of the article Mr. X wrote be called hearing impaired, and not deaf by the deaf culture?

In your class did they teach you about different things like neurosensory hearing loss and the side effects other than hearing loss, or was it primarily a sign class?

 

That argument makes absolutely no sense. The definition of "deaf" doesn't have to contain the word "handicap" for deafness to fit under the definition of "handicap."

I'm sorry that language doesn't fit with whatever public-relations agenda you are trying to push, but a physical inability to do something that is considered a normal part of the human repertoire is a handicap. Deal with it.

 

The Deaf culture would have preferred to see the word "deaf" in relation to the person mentioned in the article. They never approve of the word hearing-impaired used in this manner.

Typically, the culture uses hard of hearing for someone who slowly loses their hearing over time at a later time in life, as opposed to losing it young. That really seems to be the distinction.

I am going to school to become a certified ASL interpreter, so my classes are mainly sign classes, but a big majority of what we learn is the culture as well. Two of the classes required for the degree are strictly deaf culture and deaf community classes. And I've learned a lot as well directly from deaf people. So my responses are coming from a cultural standpoint and not a medical standpoint.

 

I believe that you are both right here. Yes, in the truest sense of the word, deaf people are handicapped. However, most of them do not see it as a handicap, not in the truest sense of the word.

I think (and I could be wrong here) the point that Fredrick was trying to make is that the deaf person in question would not have wanted to be referred to as "handicap" in the article. Or "hearing-impaired."

 

So by their defintion I am deaf. I don't mind hearing impaired, but whatever.

Haven't tried hearings aids in over 25 years, not much that can be done when the wiring in your head is shot, but am going to an Audiologist soon to see what's new.

Being an ALS interperter can be demanding and stressful, depending on the postion.

 

It's like the Crips and the Bloods. Only with less noise.

 

A deaf woman honks.

 

Is it fair to categorize a handicap as something that puts a person at a disadvantage? (Which is why there are ADA laws and such). I think that if you're deaf and you don't hear the wild beeping of a car horn as the vehicle is careening toward you from somewhere behind you... well, that's a disadvantage.

 

Emergency response vehicles. Police cars, ambulances, fire engines..