This is not a so simple world with simple solutions. Each person is unique on how we deal with our hearing loss. Each parents' situation is unique when it comes to their deaf/hh child on communication access. Hearing loss is about people with all kinds of hearing loss from mild to profound. Each person has certain communications needs, wants and preferences. Some don't care for identity politics while others are immersed in them. Some preferred to be called hearing imparied, deaf, hard of hearing, Deaf or simply say "I have a hearing loss." If some are hoping that sensorineural hearing loss would be reversed in 10 or 20 years for now and would like to see their own hearing loss restored as well, good for them. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't do that? Who am I to tell parents they shouldn't do that for their deaf/hh baby? Who am I to tell parents that their communication options ought to be more restrictive or limited for their deaf/hh child? Who am I to tell people whether if they feel whole or partial?Will ASLDeafVlogs let my comment come through or not? The same question is asked of The Deaf Sherlock, will he allow my comments to come through as well? Are they busy or are they both purposely ignoring my comment? I hope it is not the latter. If so, then that would be a petty thing to do.
"Deafhood" as I see it is an ideology that mixes identity politics of its own brand, namely Deaf culture, rather than simply on a shared or common interest because mostly I see people that are constantly fixated on the "don't fix me" meme and connect that with "deafhood" and apply that to everybody else. No thanks.
The one single thing that is common in all of us is that we all have hearing loss from mild to profound. How our we deal with our hearing loss and communication barriers vary from one person to the next. So, that's the second common interest we all have. Everything else just de-evolve from there breaking up into various factions. Which is why I say, "Deafhood? No thanks." Accept that. Move on.
As for "deficient human beings," your analysis is wrong. I see potential in each and every human being regardless if a person is blind, deaf, partially paralyzed or has other certain limiting conditions but certainly does not limit their spirit and creativity. What I don't do is limit their choices. If one hopes that he or she will see
again or have improved vision with the help of medical technology, I wish him or
her luck. If one hopes that he or she will be able to hear fully once again, I wish him or her luck. If one hopes that a cure for spinal paralysis will happen soon on the horizon so that he or she can walk, I say good luck to that person and hope for the best. If a person chooses not to then I say, great, that is a personal choice. It is not my position to try and limit people dreams or hopes on their own journey, whatever that might be. It's not for me to say or define. Neither should you. It is not my position to limit parents' informed decision on how to raise their deaf/hh child. Rather I like to give them the opportunity to expand beyond what's possible by whatever means it would require to make for them see and experience positive success.
I hope that each of us succeed in our own ways that's positive and rewarding that each of us can only appreciate. Hopefully, others will appreciate it as well. Deaf identity politics is just ugly business. I have the right to define who I am, and not from you or anybody else have that right.
In my blogging, I have no interest in using my blog to make personal attacks against people in any of the deaf and hard of hearing communities. My disagreement is with "deafhood." And how it is used to pervert it's own ideology by mixing identity politics with Deaf culture in the attempt to get everybody to follow it. That will simply not work, especially when people use it as an agenda setting goal using intimidation tactics, guilt trips, or other perverted means of using hyperbole such as lecturing about "deaf hate crime" in the attempt to win sympathies and put "deafhood" up on a pedestal. Yet by doing so presents its own irony.
Of course when a crime is committed against a deaf person and the reason for the attack is because of the person's deafness then that is wrong. There are people who do act on their hate against people by physically attacking them because of their deafness, and that is totally wrong. And they should be prosecuted and jailed. Any kind of crime against a deaf person for the reason of his/her deafness should be met with some kind of a prosecution. But to disagree about "deafhood," or disagree with a Deaf person over a topic or for someone to not accept "deafhood" is NOT a "deaf hate crime." It doesn't even come close. It gets even more ridiculous whenever Deaf people accuse other deaf/hh people and call it a "crime" for having an opinion. Or call it a "Deaf hate speech." All in all, having a disagreement over an issue or topic is called having an opinion. It's not a crime. It's not about hate. It's about having an opinion. Be smart. Learn the difference.
