fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3125 ]

[ SECRET POST #3125 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3125 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 066 secrets from Secret Submission Post #447.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That takes away the agency of the child, and the adult they will become though. And if you know anything about Deaf culture, you would know that CoDAs (hearing children of Deaf adults) have a much harder time in life than Deaf children born to Deaf adults. (Check out Lane's writing,for example.)

I'm deaf/hard of hearing (sorry SJWs but that was the PC term in my day and I haaaaaaaaate the phrase "hearing impaired") not Deaf, though, so I may be talking out my backside. But there is a fine line between "cure ALL the things" and becoming the Borg. Where humanity ends up going with that, I couldn't say.

It is a disease, not a community.

Um, no? I'm deaf because of my congenital genetic disorder, not a disease. And the Deaf community is legitimately a community. Soooo 0/10?

Do you think most people care about the difference between a disorder and disease, lets just use the lay meaning and leave the hair splitting behind us. The deaf "community" is a response to the disease, to ameliorate its effects. If it starts retarding efforts to cure deafness instead of helping the sufferers bear it, and try and work around it, then the community has become as much a problem as deafness itself.

God dammit I want to agree with you (I'm deaf too for those of you just tuning in) but you're phrasing everything in such amazingly douchey ways.

If a cure was found for kids in-utero then it changes from helping a deaf person navigate a mostly hearing world, to essentially deliberately deafening a child so the parents feel more a connection with them. It makes the parents have a closer connection, but it means the kid is going to go through a lot of hell and isolation they wouldn't need to. That is just cruel. That is how I see it.

Yeah, I actually agree with that (and thank you for wording it so much better than AIRT.) I'm mostly just reminded of an apocryphal story I heard years ago where a deaf woman gave birth to a hearing baby and stuck pencils in her baby's ears to make it deaf. I'm not sure the story is true, but I know a lot of deaf people who think it's okay and I wish I didn't.

Wow. I really hope that is just an urban legend (to Snopes!), but that people actually think it would be cool if it happened is scary.

Yeah, that's the problem with the deaf community. What started off as a need for solidarity in the face of discrimination has now become a very insular group that just as easily tears down its members as it fights against ableism that isn't always there.

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-25 21:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

dethtoll - 2015-07-25 22:01 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-25 22:15 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

dethtoll - 2015-07-25 22:16 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-26 00:01 (UTC) - Expand

holy fucking fuck

fuck

AYRT

That "hell and isolation" (it's really really not, trust me) can be fixed, by fixing societal attitudes towards the D/deaf, IMO. But that's too much to ask, let's stick cochlear implants in their ears that will give them robot hearing instead! (Just frex.) So that's the Deaf community's position on it.

OTOH, if the parents are hearing and want to mainstream their kid, raise their kid auditory-verbal (hello, this would be me), I can tell you with absolute certainty, that it was/is not my deafness that has irritated me/stopped me from doing anything in this life; it has been societal attitudes towards my being deaf (as opposed to seeing me as a person first and foremost) that has caused me the most irritation.

Example, "My brother had an operation and he was completely cured and didn't need hearing aids anymore! You should get the same operation!" Cue ten minutes of back-and-forthing, and this idiot's refusal to understand I AM NOT LIKE YOUR BROTHER, and you have a typical example from my life. The mouthbreather was absolutely too stupid to comprehend any kind of explanation, and I was never going to see him again, anyway; but it wasn't my being deaf that was the barrier in that example, it was the other person's attitude towards my being deaf.

Yeah, I get that it's nuanced. And I mostly support auditory-verbal therapy, and I know that, even if I lose what's left of my residual hearing, I'll never be a member of the Deaf community, even though I'm deaf. I still don't think it's right to make a decision for an unborn child, either way (that's the key phrase right there) as to whether they will be Deaf or hearing. That's getting into "designer baby" territory like whoa. From both sides.

I was like you - mainstreamed in the late 1970s onward. It was apparently the "standard" of that era, though I am given to understand that since the late 1980s/early 1990s it has been more common to not push mainstreaming as hard.

For me though it was absolutely vital, I think. Being able to function auditory-verbal allows me to communicate in ways that are utterly blocked to me on occasions when I can't do that (for example in loud multiple conversations, I'm stuck and sometimes have to shut off my hearing aids).

But yeah, I've had people be total dicks to me back in my school years over having HAs; since going to university it hasn't been as much of an issue though.

...only I'm not suffering, just because I'm deaf. It would be the same thing as me saying to you, "you're suffering because you have blue eyes, and we should eradicate all the blue eyes from people".

But you're legit trolling now, so w/e bro.

NAYRT

But blue eyes don't confer any benefit or disadvantage.

Deafness does.

Deafness can get you killed - for example, simply by not being able to hear a warning.

I don't know of ANYONE whose lost their hearing who doesn't wish for it back.

Someone who is born without legs is not less disabled than someone who had them blown off or lost them in a car crash.

I never lost my hearing, though. I just never had as much of the standard quota from the beginning. As for not hearing warnings, well, I'm not deaf-BLIND you see, I can tell when people are acting differently around me...if a large number of people are running in one direction, or pointing at something and yelling, it's pretty clear, even to a deaf person, it's time to get outta Dodge.

SA

Let me put succinctly: Disadvantage and suffering are polar opposites. I may have some of the former, but I have none of the latter. Does that make sense?

Except... Blue eyed people don't have a disability? Are you sure you're not the one that's trolling?

SA

Just for reference, so others understand where I'm coming from, I would take a "miracle cure" for my arthritis in a heartbeat. Being deaf? Nah. I've made a good life for myself, and my deafness has about as much bearing on that as my eye colour does. IOW, it doesn't.

But do you have the right to choose that for others? Such as your own child?

Because while you say you'd be fine it, I have to tell you that if someone, say, purposefully damaged my brother's eardrums so that he lost his hearing, it would take all of my willpower not to kill them in retaliation.

And you can say, "it's not a big deal, he can make a good life for himself and his deafness will have as much bearing on his life as his eye color" but that is ZERO comfort. It's absolutely DEVASTATING to lose your hearing. Even if he lost it at a young age, before he had memory of it.

I'm happy you've found a good life. But I also think the phrase "you don't know what you're missing" is very applicable as well.

AYRT

But do you have the right to choose that for others? Such as your own child?

No, I don't, nor does my child. That's what I'm trying to say. If my child chooses, as an adult, to have purple eyes, then they have the free will to make that choice. Or to be hearing versus deaf.

It's absolutely DEVASTATING to lose your hearing. Even if he lost it at a young age, before he had memory of it.

Your first sentence makes sense, your second sentence doesn't. Technically, I "lost" my hearing during cell division in my mother's womb. That's long before I had memory of it, and I'm here to tell you, that's not devastating.

Hearing people losing their hearing is devastating, because they haven't had a lifetime of living with it. They're so unprepared, that it is devastating. But that's a completely different situation from someone (like me) who is born deaf.

But I also think the phrase "you don't know what you're missing" is very applicable as well.

...and this would be a prime example of the societal devaluing of a person with a disability (in my case, my being deaf).

Or, to spout an old cliche, "My life is different, NOT deficient!"

(no subject)

bronzed.livejournal.com - 2015-07-26 10:21 (UTC) - Expand

Good for you! That's great.

DA

I would take it on one condition - I could still "turn off" my hearing when I wanted to.

I disagree on the statement that a disorder is the same as a disease. It's simply incorrect.

TBH "hearing impaired" has been a term since at least the late 1970s

Deaf/HoH born in the era

dude, we make medical decisions for kids all the time

their "agency" means nothing if it's something they would never be able to choose as an adult anyway

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only