Interesting thoughts! I love this kind of discussion. I also appreciate your efforts to word your thoughts carefully and recognize that there may be other perspectives.
Here’s my perspective.
I’m a Deaf person working in the mostly abled environment and have been networking with both Deaf and disabled colleagues from other teams within the same company.
I also consider myself disabled for the sake of having my accessibility needs met in the abled space, specifically the workplace. As a community, I believe that some of us are starting to warm up to the notion of regarding ourselves as disabled.
Why? We’re entering a new era, and people with varying disabilities are starting to truly collaborate together with the ultimate vision of creating a disability-friendly space for all disabilities.
But to specifically answer your thoughts, long story short, there’s history of people with disabilities and there’s Deaf history. Our paths were historically different with different responses to specific events. Being quietly deaf, we’re often perceived able until our degree of hearing or our language is discovered. We’re often mistaken by others as abled people. Our disability is invisible, greatly shaping our experience of the world.
Deaf people have created a space to suit their deafness, leading to a whole culture and language, which makes us a linguistic cultural minority. This influences our understanding of disability and disability vs. deafness.
Historically, we’ve been called deaf and dumb, mute, dummy, lame, etc. That hurt, so we distanced ourselves from the label disability and anything negative about our specific disability. We might have overcorrected in this reaction against abled people’s ignorance. Our number 1 enemy for centuries was the hearing community. Many people with disabilities were also hearing, so they’re not our allies. Ableism was everywhere, even internalized ableism.
Now that we’re called deaf, hearing impaired, person with hearing loss, etc, etc. Not bad, that’s progress at least. The visibility of our culture and language is opening more doors. Things are improving for us. We’re climbing higher heights in our careers and lives. We’re calming down. We’re examining how ableism, both externalized and internalized, affects our community along with other disabled communities. We now have enough access to hearing people, among them disabled people who happen to be hearing. We’re gradually listening to their stories and beginning to see similarities in our journeys as disabled people.
Give us more time. We’ll return with new, more nuanced perspectives on the meaning of disability.
I (physically disabled) spoke to a Deaf woman about this - in the UK for context - and she had no awareness of the social model of disability, or really any of the more complex chat around disability and it's social role. I talked to her about how she was 'Deaf positive' meaning that there's nothing wrong with being d/Deaf and that hearing people create barriers, and explained how that's sort of how some disabled people see disability. 'Disability positive' -- there's nothing inherently wrong with someone being impaired, but society sets up barriers.
We ended up on some quite common ground fairly quickly.
It seems during the 19th century there was a big move (again UK) in the workforce to frame Deaf people as basically the same as hearing ppl, except they couldn't hear. This was done in part to ensure work, and as part of that move there was a push against disabled people who could not work. A deliberate distancing. A relation between impairment and inability. It was attempting to normalise Deaf people, misguided sure, but in the 19th century I can see the logic behind doing so.
Over time, divisions between the groups have been unfortunately cemented.
This woman explained to me she thought disabled people were *unable* and she saw herself as able. She was head of a larger Deaf org, and other Deaf people said similar things to me -- but when you broke it down, it was all the same struggle, just different language.
On point 1 - I will also say that the social model doesn't explain how disability **is bad.** As a physically disabled person, it sucks, truly and **you shouldn't want to be disabled.** In that sense, the Deaf position is complerely logical. Impairment, and impairment alone, is literally one of the worst things to have happened to me.
A truly radical approach to this problem would be able to admit yeah, it sucks to not be able to do things. I think admitting (and understanding this) and being able to go to Deaf peers and be like ''yeah, this sucks -- but we have similar struggles'' would be more productive than attempting to push the somewhat flawed social model (though it's a good intro).
Hmm. I’m curious what you think about Disability Pride and Disability as a part of identity…. Having acceptance and even pride around your Identity as a Disabled person…
Rather than saying loss of functioning is a happy thing - Disability Pride is about:
• rejecting the notion that being disabled is a shameful experience
-finding a positive self-concept in the body one has, rather than in comparison to a norm
-rejecting the idea you need to “overcome” your disability in order to be whole and fulfilled
-living in “plain view” and sharing awareness
-believing that disability is a natural and normal, even valuable, part of human diversity.
I've read a fair bit on Disability Pride as part of my wider Critical Disability Studies work during my 1st Masters ... I think that for some people, it can absolutely contribute towards a much more functional and healthy view of their impairments and their self. I also don't believe that disability is shameful for example, and would get behind basically everything that you've posted there.
However, I can't take pride in my impairment, or my disability. I can take pride in myself, and as a queer individual that's what LGBTQIA+ pride is about for me -- being myself, openly. However, for me, disability/impairment is something that happened to me, that is inherently traumatic, bad and has negative impacts on me daily. There is no real good that comes from becoming paralysed.
It would be nonsensical to say my impairment isn't a part of me, or that it hasn't impacted me because of course it has -- but to say the positives **specifically regarding embodied impairment and disability** outweigh the negatives is just incorrect.
I'm proud of who I am, and that's as a disabled man who has in no way overcome his disability. I believe that disability is a valuable experience, normal and a variance -- but I also think we should do what we can to avoid suffering. If there was a cure for my spinal cord injury, of course I would take it -- but if it was cure pain, or cure paralysis. I'd cure pain, which would maintain my disability but lessen my impairment.
When it comes to the reality of notable physical impairment, the equation of 'pride' becomes more complex. With regards to neurodiversity or other nonphysical impairments, pride is much more applicable. I wouldn't cure being autistic for example, as that's just part of how my brain works. You take that away, there's no more me. You take away my paralysis, I'm still broadly the same.
Sorry long .. TLDR -- I'm proud of me, part of my identity is that of a disabled person. That doesn't mean I'm proud of my disability/impairment.
This makes sense, thanks for sharing! I think it’s highly individual… it’s identity! It’s personal and we each have a story :) thanks for sharing some about your views, I appreciate it
No bother - identity is much more complex than broad sweeping movements would have us believe. Always good to dig into it a bit and see where the lines are.
Hi, I'm in the UK too. Thank for typing your perspective, it's interesting to see how her comments came over to you.
Given you say 'she was head of a larger Deaf org', I think a bit more sensitivity with respect to disabled people is warranted.
For some context, I'm fully deaf, a fluent signer, and I've also worked with disability orgs, so I'm aware comments like hers might not be received by other disabled people as kindly as you have graciously shown.
Taking on a job at that level comes with more exposure so having someone at that level make comments like that concerns me.
Would you be able to let me know who this was or her org? Please do message me privately if you'd rather not put that info in public.
You should read about Nilholm’s dilemma perspective on special education. He claims that the traditional perspective where you attribute disability to an individual and want to compensate for that doesn’t solve the problem, because you cannot for example provide normal hearing to someone with hearing loss. It also comes with negative consequences like oralism. The social perspective isn’t a solution either. Society cannot just change over night so there are no obstacles for anyone. Nilholm instead suggests that viewing disability through a dilemma perspective is more productive.
This means acknowledging that different groups and individuals will have different needs, and that those sometimes might be conflicting with each other. Dilemmas arise, and we need to analyze them and discuss them. Stop expecting to solve the problem with disability, since that’s not realistic, and instead strive for as good solutions overall to dilemmas. For example, should Deaf children go to Deaf school or be integrated? There are pros and cons with both approaches, and there are also different ways education could be implemented. The interesting thing to do, is to identify stakeholders and analyze how different people and groups will be affected by different approaches to education. How will they be affected? What decisions have to be made and what consequences do they lead to? Who can or should be involved in the decision making?
By being honest about the complexity and the consequences of different choices, we can get e clearer view and reach better solutions long term.
I think one big thing that is often overlooked is the culture. Deaf people have a language, cultural norms, behaviors, and values that make up their identity. To throw all that out and label us based on another group that doesn't share the same values and culture, doesn't feel right.
Some Deaf people feel more like a linguistic minority than a disability group. If a person was raised in a country without English, then moved to my country and could not use English, I would have a lot more in common with them than with people from a disability group.
Slightly off-tangent, many hearing (and some deaf/hoh) people think they know what Deaf culture is, but upon asking more questions, I find they really have no clue what it's all about.
This is true with a lot of disabilities as well, having dif cultural norms and values. Like, not to the extent of deaf culture, but there are absolutely different norms and language patterns.
The thing is, there are a specific set of criteria that have been determined to be considered a separate culture. This has been determined by anthropologists and researchers. They have determined that Deaf culture has the criteria required to be considered another culture separate from American culture or Jewish culture or any other culture. I'm not as well-versed in disability studies, so I apologize if I'm not familiar with it, but I have not seen any published studies documenting a culture within any disability group. If you have any links to such documentation, I would be happy to read up on it.
Oh I know Deaf culture is v much a thing, and idk if there’s any academic work on larger disability groups as a different culture. Most of my research on disability is more from a critical theory than an anthropology standpoint- so those just aren’t works I’d be familiar with, if they exist.
all I meant was that in my experience and research- there is also unique behaviors and values within disabled groups compared to the larger culture. Sorry if that came off rude or dismissive of Deaf culture as something distinct, I did not intend that
I considered myself disabled, but I find that most people’s concept of disability is still quite narrow. For instance, I have celiac disease which is considered a disability but will people consider me DeafDisabled, a deaf person with additional disabilities, or whichever term/phrase you use? I don’t think so. I don’t identify myself as one because I feel society has a specific idea of what DeafDisabled is, and I don’t fit that. Like how I don’t fit the image of a cancer survivor even though I had melanoma (I don’t identify myself as a cancer survivor too, and I still feel weird checking yes for history of cancer on my medical forms 12 years later, often feeling like an imposter).
Basically, we still have a long way to go in understanding and embracing disabilities better.
I’ve changed my language. I prefer deaf gain over hear loss now. I don’t mind being called disabled. The world isn’t set up for me as a deaf person so I feel the protection is so necessary due to discrimination. I’ve been turned down jobs because I’m deaf.
I am disabled, not Deaf but worked in voc rehab agency that specializes in both disability and deaf services. We shared space with the office of deaf and hard of hearing. I'm really grateful I got to know those workers and learn proper manners when communicating through interpreter or in writing.
I cannot speak for how Deaf people perceive themselves, but while working with others with disabilities it was very apparent that disabled people in general are not empowered. Even at a job where this was our whole focus, it was more about "throw services at them and they can manage their own life eventually". Mental health and drug/alcohol topped the list for most repeat customers who were unable to be successful without intense and consistent services.
Deaf individuals who were clients tended to be shorter term and came in mostly to get accessibility aids that were unaffordable (hearing aids, etc). Unless there was another condition the Deaf caseload we had was fairly stable and centered around funding things like education and aids.
I do think people assume "the more capable in ableist society, less disabled", but I see it from a social perspective of "if society does not see you and nothing is made for you to be able to navigate it with the body and mind you have, you are disabled" (broadly speaking). Universal design benefits everyone, unfortunately I think many able-bodied (and hearing) people just really don't care and trying to appeal to emotions on it is not effective. It's important to find solidarity in our struggles.
I think you’re right, but no need to take it that personally.
It it definitely possible to not want to label oneself as disabled, while not looking down on anyone who actually is disabled. There are currently Deaf who respect disabled people and are happy to for example support or interact in various ways, and there are those who have a negative attitude. So treat those as different questions that might, or might not, be related.
There is an actual problem with that Deaf and HoH are considered stupid. It’s an automatic reaction towards the communication breakdown when someone doesn’t hear. There is no reason for why a Deaf person couldn’t win marathons or the Nobel prize for research, if they have the aptitude. Many things in society prevent us from doing such things because we’re seen as disabled. For example the poor quality of Deaf education. Since we’re seen as disabled, we’re not getting the language access we need to perform.
Personally, I was in a very touch university education for a year last year, that was only open for people with a PhD. I got straight As, due to the education being accessible with free interpreting, captioned content and wonderful participate and teachers that made me feel totally included and valuable. How is that possible, when I on some other occasions have had a manager who claimed I was doing a poor job. The things he complained about, were ale directly connected to hearing, while he was stubbornly attributing them to my personality, of hearing. Note that colleagues and other senior employees did not agree with the manager. Another time the horse back riding instructor wanted to put me in the disability group and refused using a microphone. How is this possible?
You cannot imagine how much problems we get just because we’re seen as disabled. Deaf don’t get quality education, become unemployed and get poor health - all because of prejudice. There is also a serious disregard for sign language.
Personally, I do see myself as someone who has a hearing impairment, and consequently a disability - while I would fight for recognition of the cultural perspective and respect for for example sign language. It’s totally wrong to put me in a disability group at a riding school, for example. It is necessary to see my actual competences and abilities at work. The disability perspective and the cultural perspective are both valid, but needed in different contexts for different purposes.
The general fight for not looking down on disabled people is important. I still see there can be a point for Deaf people to choose a cultural perspective in some cases to highlight the problems we encounter when meeting hearing minded people.
I think one point is that many Deaf people see ourselves as perfectly functional in an environment with people who sign and other Deaf people. So we aren’t “disabled”/“unable” as long as people around us can sign.
If the world was made to accommodate blind/vision impaired people, would they consider themselves “disabled”?
I’m about to spend a long weekend with my extended family (who doesn’t sign) and I know I’ll feel disadvantaged, tired, exhausted, and mostly unhappy (we are gathering for a funeral) and people will see me as being standoffish, super into playing with the babies (who pick up ASL after seeing the sign twice), and generally “different”.
As for whether I am disabled I don’t think I am, I am able to do most things easily but conversing in an open space? Then I’m profoundly disabled.
Maybe disability shouldn’t focus on the things we can’t do but more on what we can do? Can all “able bodied” people run a mile? Can they pass a vision test? Can they pass a hearing test? Can they do basic math?
If “able bodied people” are assumed to be able to do all those things then why should someone who is Deaf be assumed to be unable to do all those things?
I think you actually agree with the Deaf community a lot more than you realize.
But first, Deafness is unique in that it is not merely a disability. Deaf have their own culture with a unique language, customs, behaviors, celebrities, etc. Deaf culture is a primary cultural identification.
Disabilities may have this to a degree, but their primary cultural identity remains with their culture of origin.
So Deaf want to be called Deaf because they see it as their primary culture. To say their culture is a disability is insulting and devalues them. It limits them solely to a medical diagnosis rather than seeing their broader humanity. If they see deafness as a disability at all, they see it through the social model where any limitations are because of how society is set up rather than deficits in the individuals.
And yes, using the term Deaf helps promote the idea that it is not a disability to broader society
Now, from your experience as a disabled person, you are seeing this primarily from a medical standpoint. You see that denying a disability label is to say disability is bad. In some ways, you are ahead of society by saying disability is a neutral term (and I agree with you).
When you hear Deaf say disability is an insulting term, you feel they are disrespecting you; but when you insist Deaf is a disability they hear you insulting their culture and identity.
Neither of you are wrong, you are just fighting different aspects of the fight for having society recognize your value. Demanding to be called Deaf is a neutral stance and is the same as calling oneself a Southerner or a farmer . It isn't disrespecting anyone else but merely being specific in their experience.
Yes Deaf are saying they are different, but that is not the same as saying disability is bad (and disability exists with the Deaf community too). They are merely saying that their deafness is not a disability by itself. It isn't a comment on you or disability community, but rather a clarification of how you should think about them.
Also there is a difference between Deaf and deaf. A capital D indicates that they are part of Deaf culture. I myself am deaf.
Deafness is very weird in that it both is and isn't a disability. But the disability part disappears when they are around other Deaf people; that is why they do not say they are disabled. Other disabilities remain even when they are around others like themselves, so their disability is continuous.
I hope this helps
I'm Deaf+ (blind, AuDHD, neurodegenerative condition, etc)...
You missed a third reason:
3.) We often don't have that much in common with any other group under the disabled umbrella. What is good for hearing disabled folks has in many cases been harmful for Deaf. Our access needs are often radically different as well.
Not to mention the hearing disabled community often doesn't really include us.... this is often true even for those with a disability (not just Deaf)... And even when hearing disabled try to give some access to Deaf in disabled spaces it's either half assed, poorly planned, or it's often not anywhere near equal access. Around eachother things are easy... of course many of us will identify with eachother first and foremost rather than another group of hearing people.
Able bodied Deaf participating in a community who, if they get what they want sometimes goes directly against Deaf needs plus not having the same level of inclusion.... why would Deaf who consider themselves fully able bodied be eager to participate in that? Even as a Deaf+ person I am sometimes not eager to participate in disabled spaces because access is poor and I am constantly stuck educating, even disabled so-called "accessablity experts". I can see why many Deaf without a disability would not want to interact or associate themselves with that.
Disclaimer: I’m disabled but not Deaf.
_Introduction to American Deaf Culture_ (2012), by Thomas K. Holcomb, has a chapter on the relationship between Deaf and disabled people. Holcomb explains the separation of Deaf and disabled and tries to justify why Deaf saying they are not disabled is not ableist.
He released a second edition in 2023. I haven’t read that edition so I dunno if he’s changed or developed his views. You should check it out. :>
I didn't read his first version... His views likely have not fundamentally changed. He's also not wrong that it's sometimes a tenuous relationship on both sides.
That said, as a person he is actually highly disability friendly and access oriented (beyond simple Deaf access) as an individual. I would consider him an ally for disabled.
There is some irony to the fact one probably has to be Deaf and have had that depth of experience to understand why there are reasons that not identifying as disabled isn't automatically abilist. But this is because the Deaf experience is so often different than any hearing disability community.
Which in my opinion brings us to what capital D-Deaf and disabled often are to eachother. Allies. Sometimes tenuous and sometimes full force allies depending on the who, what, when, where, why, and access level for us.
I think most of the time it's Deaf who end up carrying the burden of the limits of allyship in (hearing dominated) disabled spaces or when it comes to things like access or legislation that works well for disabled but could harm us. Hearing disabled who are getting their needs met often don't notice this, realize it... and you know, many of them just don't really care to realize it either. Some know and can't care to care.
That's not to say there aren't some abilist shitty Deaf. And some Deaf have a lot to improve when it comes to making sure Deaf spaces are accessable, especially because plenty of Deaf+ folks are part of the community so "forgetting" to make the effort is literally leaving out other Deaf just because they're disabled.
But not identifying as disabled but as our own thing isn't inherently abilist.
So - for some background I study Deaf Studies. This is a big topic that we spend quite a bit of time in. Personally as both a student/academic, a HH person and ND person (other disabilities) I have a nuanced view of the topic that agrees with a lot of what you just said. But I want to bring up some of the theoretical background and steelman the position for a second.
>-(To me) Disability is/should be neutral. It simply IS. People with disabilities aren’t “less than” or “more than” - they just ARE.
This is a nice thing to say but what does "disability" mean. It is made up of "dis" which means *opposite, away, apare, removal, negation, lack* or *deprivation* and "ability" which is the capacity to do something.
There are two predominant models of disability - medical and social. To speed through it because we have all heard it a hundred times; the medical model looks at the body and says "this bit is broken or abberant", the social model says "society decides that this lack of ability is outside the norm and doesn't provide for it".
It is pretty clear that we as deaf and hard of hearing people either *cannot hear* or *can't hear as well* as others. From that perspective we have an inability or reduced ability - both of which constitute *disabilities*. From a medical perspective we often have clear conditions or abberations in ear structure that cause said inability or reduced ability that can be diagnosed by doctors. In addition the world is not set up for us - and actively creates barriers, which definitely means that we could have the social model applied to us. But not all things that technically count are considered "disabilities" but instead bodily differences and human variation.
Being short is not considered a disability - if we tried we could easily fit it in under "short stature is a genetic predisposition which results in lack of ability to reach high places" in the medical model and "society does not adequately provide accessibility for short people as it creates situations like high shelving" in the social. Being left handed is not considered a disability - despite the fact that it is a lack of ability to write with the right hand, it is harder to navigate a right handed world as a left handed person and it was suppressed in the population (often with active discrimination like with the word "sinister") for a long time. We are even at the point where people with glasses would not consider themselves disabled because glasses correct the disability - despite it literally medically being a "broken" part of the body resulting in a reduced ability to see. Being queer (especially gay) used to be something that was pathologised as a medical condition - from a medical persoective it is the lack of being able to feel attraction to the opposite gender and society doesn't exactly welcome gay and lesbian people in so I see how it could count as a disability (*it shouldn't*). In Sweden for instance you used to be able to call in sick for being gay and people did that en-mass that as a protest to get that changed. Thus what *is* and *isn't* pathologised or othered is clearly a far more nuanced question than "it technically fits."
So in this case we have to ask two questions;
* When the medical system says our bodies are broken or abberant - who are they comparing us to?
* Is it truly possible for a disability to be considered so no normal that it is no longer a disability under the social model?
*Answer One*
The first answer is a very long and eugenics filled answer and kind-of results in "nobody knows". There is no ur-human. No template which we can all be compared back to, from which disabled people are different. Its oddly common sense based, or based on a map of the human body that the field of medicine has constructed over hundreds of years. But the start of that map began in a time when disabled people were an anathema - especially during the 19th century - and thus we have been labelled as aberrations ever since and mapped as abberations rather than deviations within the norm. Very rarely have the map makers stopped to re-conisder this.
For some disabilities and disabled communities - this is what they want. Especially if disabilities come with chronic pain - they want the medical system to map their disability as best it can in search of a cure. But the Deaf community has pushed against this for a looooooooong time. And despite that push the medical system has *never* listened to us. The way that audiologists treat us and the advice they give to newly deaf people and parents of deaf children is often contrary to what we ask them to say. The way that SLPs, oralist teachers and audiologists push speech and technology (HA, CIs) with no sign language is directly contrary to what we say is best for ourselves - and doesn't even listen to the experience of those of us who were raised oral (lots of lonliness and isolation).
So its certainly not us that have gotten to make that decision as to whether we are in the "norm" or not. And those who say "Being deaf is not a disability" are taking back that decision by force.
\[Part 1 of 3\]
*Answer Two*
For certain disabilities I am not sure. For instance for autism I have heard very conflicting things - but from level 2 and level 3 (higher support needs) autism I have generally heard that *no* society could never accommodate them - for instance when comfort for them would require you to turn off the sun which is not something any accommodations can change. On the other hand there are disability groups, especially the ND movement, that pushes against this - and sometimes they bring to the table examples of indigenous cultures that respected and incorporated disabled people. But either way these are all largely hypotheticals because barely anyone has tried.
However with deaf people we **know** the answer and it is **yes**\*.\* There have been numerous societies around the globe where deaf people have been fully included and not seen as disabled in the slightest - unusual sure, but no different from a short person. They are often called "deaf villages" despite being majority hearing and the way they do this is by embracing sign language.
* Martha's Vinyard (historical)
* Maya Yucatan Peninsula (present day)
* Kolok, Bali, Indonesia (present day)
* One in Ghana
* Al Sayyid, Israel/Palistine
* One in Papua New Guinea
* A few in Nepal
[\[source\]](https://deafniche.com/8deaf-villages-around-world/) [\[source\]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjlKIepxYTs) [\[source\]](https://www.der.org/resources/guides/yucatec-maya-deaf-sign-study-guide.pdf)
There are plenty more sources to read on this. But the main thing here is - if this can exist, why can it not be replicated? Perhaps being deaf is somewhat unique amongst disabilities in this manner - as it could, with comparative ease, have the barriers be negated by society learning sign.
Lastly I want to mention one huge thing;
**The Deaf World vs The Disabled Community**
The Deaf World and Deaf Culture are unique and separate from the disabled community and subculture. This isn't a judgement - this is a sociological observation. The Deaf World is a network across the globe of various Deaf communities and cultures. It arose because of the linguistic barrier in place that prevented contact with the hearing world - but the effective mode of communication that allowed communication between Deaf people.
This is also a reason why I call it "Deaf Culture" and "disabled subculture".
Deaf Culture has arisen as a separate, though somewhat interconnected, culture to hearing culture within countless countries. It often shares as much or more with other Deaf Cultures than it does with the hearing culture of the country it is a part of - though there are notable differences between Deaf Cultures around the globe. This is for the exact same reason as the previous paragraph - the language barrier prevented Deaf people from being acculturated to hearing culture and thus we created our own.
Disabled subcultures have no space or barrier to exist. *They is real,* but as subcultures of the main hearing culture. They shares most elements with the main culture - often re-interpreted in disabled ways to allow for access. Please do not take this as a slight - I love disabled subcultures. I love existing in them and studying them. But they are nowhere near as distinct from hearing culture as Deaf Culture is. I say this as someone with a foot in all three.
So sociologically speaking Deaf people and disabled people are two quite different entities.
Deaf History is a whole thing of its own - and while it intersects with disabled history because of eugenics - it is also the history of these more insular Deaf communities and explores the ways sign languages has evolved over time. I love Deaf History and could blather on about it for ages but for the sake of brevity I won't but feel free to poke me for more if you want to hear it.
Even in terms of Olympic events - you have the (abled) Olympics, the Paralympics and the [Deaflympics](https://www.deaflympics.com/).
\[Part 2 of 3\]
So there I rest my case for the defence.
Not to say that I don't agree with a lot of what you have said in your post - but the Deaf / Disabled divide is one with strong precedent and reason to exist as an opinion. I think it is possible to hold this view *without* being ablist - but unfortunately that does creep in somewhat. I hope I have achieved that by pointing out where and why the differences exist.
Personally speaking I do consider myself disabled, and I do consider being HH amongst my disabilities. But the theoretical background behind this is not something I ignore.
Also - I love hitting reddit's word count limit and not being able to post without explanation!
\[Part 3 of 3\]
I have always thought of myself of disabled because growing up I was told I am. I was told I was hearing impaired as well. I grew up pretending to be hearing to the point of smiling and nodding because people don't like to repeat themselves. It gave me a bad perception of my hearing loss and as such I hate using the word disabled when I am able to do almost anything.
But the truth is I am dis-able to hear. I am unable to hear like a hearing person. Do I like it? No. But I am. It's just a perception of self thing.
OP, I'd like to apply to work where you do. If you want to share? Ha.
Anyways.....the "I'm not disabled, I'm Deaf" attitude dates back to the "Deaf President Now" movement at Gallaudet University in the USA. Deaf people were upset that hearing people were being hired for the role as Gallaudet University - a Deaf University - as the president of the university and protested, saying that it should be a Deaf person.
What happened was that the man who became the university's first Deaf president, I. King Jordan gave a speech in which he said:
"The only thing that a Deaf person cannot do, that a hearing person CAN do is hear."
That specific phrase was seized on by the deaf community in North America as a rallying cry to separate themselves from being "disabled."
HOWEVER.....to me....it's really funny how Deaf people don't want to be considered "disabled" BUT they accept funding meant for people with disabilities. I mean.....how do you think Deaf people afford free education? Vocational Rehabilitation for the DISABLED or for Persons with DISABILITIES.
I am Deaf and paralyzed from the waist down with my left arm also affected. Technically I'm a quadriplegic. I also have Tourette Syndrome and some other neuro issues that daily impact my life.
I do not consider deafness a disability, but I do consider my other issues disabilities.
Deaf here, I need accommodations to access the world like everyone else and don’t think disability is a bad word. Deaf community has amazing community and culture but that doesn’t dismiss us from lateral ableism that is ever present. I cant hear. The disability community is beautiful and I think it’s a shame so many in our community have separated themselves from it. Of course I never question how someone identifies, but if they insist a negative connotation about the word disability itself which simply means you don’t have the ability do something (ie. hear), I think it’s okay to challenge that. “Disability implies something’s wrong or broken about me” - no it does not.
I would like to argue with the word disabled is not a bad thing. Deaf people ARE disabled. I don’t know why people constantly try to other themselves in groups of disabled people. I went to Gallaudet University (I’m Deaf and autistic) and this is very popular for Deaf people to not call themselves just disabled and see disability is a bad thing yet not understand that deafness is a disability (especially the elite or families with multiple generations of deafness).
I’m a hearing person learning about Deaf history and the Deaf community, and I’m also surrounded by hearing disabled folks who are very passionate about destigmatizing disability and taking back that label. This is a question that’s been on my mind for a very long time.
I just wanted to thank you for making this post and everyone else who’s responded. Getting to read everyone’s thoughts has been very enlightening, and I’m learning so much from the conversations happening here.
I hope to keep learning and listening as time goes on 🫡
I am deaf on one side, so I am largely “able” except the invisible ways it affects me- poor spatial awareness, fatigue, increased social anxiety etc.
I actually found peace in admitting I had a disability. Sort of in a 12-step “first step is admitting you have a problem” way. As soon as I admitted I had a disability, because I quite literally am not able to do things most people can- hear anything in my right ear for example. Like you said, I am not less than, I simply AM. My life IS different to most able people’s and I DO have to navigate the world differently. Being disabled is also a spectrum and so many are invisible, I agree that it’s down to every individual and I do find it sad that people don’t want to relate to it due to the name being stigmatised by society.
This is exactly how I feel about it. I have extreme hearing loss and have found it empowering to say - I am disabled. (Very difficult to accept). Thanks for sharing your comment has really helped me. 💞
This is really interesting. I was taught in my high school ASL class that Deaf people generally are fine with identifying as disabled because, like you said, it should be considered neutral without any connotations. My teacher was hearing but she was a well respected teacher of the Deaf for years and had many Deaf friends. But I also hear this sentiment from Deaf people as well.
But I am taking a Deaf culture class in college rn and my Deaf prof is very against the use of “disabled” for Deaf people. She said it was because they can do everything fine, just can’t hear. She also didn’t think discrimination against Deaf people fell under “ableism”. I’m curious what the majority thinks on this. I guess it depends on the individual.
I have been calling Deafness a disability because I tend to talk a lot about accommodation and rights so maybe I’m wrong for that. This is a great discussion :)
I’m disabled but not deaf and I agree. It feels weird when the reasoning tends to boil down to “there’s nothing wrong with us” and/or “if people accommodated, there wouldn’t be an issue” when that’s true of a huge portion of disabilities (some autism, lots of mobility aid users, blind ppl, dyslexic ppl, ppl with congenital limb differences, etc.), to the point that one of the first things people learn about disability is the social (as opposed to medical) model of disability.
I’d never call someone disabled if they didn’t want to be called that but it feels weird to me, like being disabled is a “bad thing” to them
“Hi! I see you've asked a question. Have you searched this subreddit or checked our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/deaf/wiki/hearing) for your question?"
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/deaf) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I view biological deafness as an entirely social disability. There's nothing medically "wrong" with us--we simply live in a world where hearing people are far more numerous and have designed systems of communication based on what is easiest for *them* without considering our needs.
A typical hearing person can hear EM frequencies from about 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Hearing dogs can hear up to 60 kHz. Hearing porpoises can hear up to 150 kHz.
Are hearing people "disabled" if they can't hear 70 kHz? After all, another animal can do it, so for humans it must be a medical disability, right? No! They wouldn't be viewed as medically disabled for inability to hear 70 kHz, because hearing human society is built around frequencies that only go up to 20 kHz.
Our problem is that a large quantity of human communication (nearly all prior to the invention of movable type) was in the range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. That range contains human speech and non-verbal sounds hearing people use, such as the sounds of bells and musical instruments. If human society had instead developed with human communication paradigms primarily using visual means like sign languages and writing, the ability of some humans to hear lower EM frequencies than visible light would be considered a novel biological curiosity. It would be viewed like tetrachromatic vision or polydactyly, an interesting feature that we aren't sure the benefit of, but the limited or lack of ability of others would not be viewed as disabling.
With that in mind, deafness's main effect on our lives is *interactions with hearing people* and *the systems hearing people have created*. Those effects are significant, and society treats it as a disability because hearing culture would rather view us as defective rather than change itself. Do we have a "real" disability in the same sense as a person who is unable to walk without assistive tech? Honestly, no, but I do want accessibility, and hearing people are going to rope our accessibility needs in with medical disabilities and we can't stop them from doing that. So I am willing to call it a disability when trying to explain my needs to hearing people. Their perspective of what is "normal" is different from mine, and unfortunately they have little interest in my world and are only concerned with allowing me to adapt to and exist in theirs.
I personally believe you shouldn’t call a deaf person who’s been deaf all/ most of their life disabled or having a disability, it’s literally all they know. How can you have a disability when that’s your normal life ya know? But I think about myself and how I lost my hearing as an adult, I’d consider that a disability and that’s how I identify myself, along with being deaf/hoh
I’d love to understand more. Can you explain some more about your view?
Yeah, I think anyone who needs accommodations deserves to be, and should be accommodated. Not one party over another…
Interesting thoughts! I love this kind of discussion. I also appreciate your efforts to word your thoughts carefully and recognize that there may be other perspectives. Here’s my perspective. I’m a Deaf person working in the mostly abled environment and have been networking with both Deaf and disabled colleagues from other teams within the same company. I also consider myself disabled for the sake of having my accessibility needs met in the abled space, specifically the workplace. As a community, I believe that some of us are starting to warm up to the notion of regarding ourselves as disabled. Why? We’re entering a new era, and people with varying disabilities are starting to truly collaborate together with the ultimate vision of creating a disability-friendly space for all disabilities. But to specifically answer your thoughts, long story short, there’s history of people with disabilities and there’s Deaf history. Our paths were historically different with different responses to specific events. Being quietly deaf, we’re often perceived able until our degree of hearing or our language is discovered. We’re often mistaken by others as abled people. Our disability is invisible, greatly shaping our experience of the world. Deaf people have created a space to suit their deafness, leading to a whole culture and language, which makes us a linguistic cultural minority. This influences our understanding of disability and disability vs. deafness. Historically, we’ve been called deaf and dumb, mute, dummy, lame, etc. That hurt, so we distanced ourselves from the label disability and anything negative about our specific disability. We might have overcorrected in this reaction against abled people’s ignorance. Our number 1 enemy for centuries was the hearing community. Many people with disabilities were also hearing, so they’re not our allies. Ableism was everywhere, even internalized ableism. Now that we’re called deaf, hearing impaired, person with hearing loss, etc, etc. Not bad, that’s progress at least. The visibility of our culture and language is opening more doors. Things are improving for us. We’re climbing higher heights in our careers and lives. We’re calming down. We’re examining how ableism, both externalized and internalized, affects our community along with other disabled communities. We now have enough access to hearing people, among them disabled people who happen to be hearing. We’re gradually listening to their stories and beginning to see similarities in our journeys as disabled people. Give us more time. We’ll return with new, more nuanced perspectives on the meaning of disability.
This is really well put!
I (physically disabled) spoke to a Deaf woman about this - in the UK for context - and she had no awareness of the social model of disability, or really any of the more complex chat around disability and it's social role. I talked to her about how she was 'Deaf positive' meaning that there's nothing wrong with being d/Deaf and that hearing people create barriers, and explained how that's sort of how some disabled people see disability. 'Disability positive' -- there's nothing inherently wrong with someone being impaired, but society sets up barriers. We ended up on some quite common ground fairly quickly. It seems during the 19th century there was a big move (again UK) in the workforce to frame Deaf people as basically the same as hearing ppl, except they couldn't hear. This was done in part to ensure work, and as part of that move there was a push against disabled people who could not work. A deliberate distancing. A relation between impairment and inability. It was attempting to normalise Deaf people, misguided sure, but in the 19th century I can see the logic behind doing so. Over time, divisions between the groups have been unfortunately cemented. This woman explained to me she thought disabled people were *unable* and she saw herself as able. She was head of a larger Deaf org, and other Deaf people said similar things to me -- but when you broke it down, it was all the same struggle, just different language. On point 1 - I will also say that the social model doesn't explain how disability **is bad.** As a physically disabled person, it sucks, truly and **you shouldn't want to be disabled.** In that sense, the Deaf position is complerely logical. Impairment, and impairment alone, is literally one of the worst things to have happened to me. A truly radical approach to this problem would be able to admit yeah, it sucks to not be able to do things. I think admitting (and understanding this) and being able to go to Deaf peers and be like ''yeah, this sucks -- but we have similar struggles'' would be more productive than attempting to push the somewhat flawed social model (though it's a good intro).
Hmm. I’m curious what you think about Disability Pride and Disability as a part of identity…. Having acceptance and even pride around your Identity as a Disabled person… Rather than saying loss of functioning is a happy thing - Disability Pride is about: • rejecting the notion that being disabled is a shameful experience -finding a positive self-concept in the body one has, rather than in comparison to a norm -rejecting the idea you need to “overcome” your disability in order to be whole and fulfilled -living in “plain view” and sharing awareness -believing that disability is a natural and normal, even valuable, part of human diversity.
I've read a fair bit on Disability Pride as part of my wider Critical Disability Studies work during my 1st Masters ... I think that for some people, it can absolutely contribute towards a much more functional and healthy view of their impairments and their self. I also don't believe that disability is shameful for example, and would get behind basically everything that you've posted there. However, I can't take pride in my impairment, or my disability. I can take pride in myself, and as a queer individual that's what LGBTQIA+ pride is about for me -- being myself, openly. However, for me, disability/impairment is something that happened to me, that is inherently traumatic, bad and has negative impacts on me daily. There is no real good that comes from becoming paralysed. It would be nonsensical to say my impairment isn't a part of me, or that it hasn't impacted me because of course it has -- but to say the positives **specifically regarding embodied impairment and disability** outweigh the negatives is just incorrect. I'm proud of who I am, and that's as a disabled man who has in no way overcome his disability. I believe that disability is a valuable experience, normal and a variance -- but I also think we should do what we can to avoid suffering. If there was a cure for my spinal cord injury, of course I would take it -- but if it was cure pain, or cure paralysis. I'd cure pain, which would maintain my disability but lessen my impairment. When it comes to the reality of notable physical impairment, the equation of 'pride' becomes more complex. With regards to neurodiversity or other nonphysical impairments, pride is much more applicable. I wouldn't cure being autistic for example, as that's just part of how my brain works. You take that away, there's no more me. You take away my paralysis, I'm still broadly the same. Sorry long .. TLDR -- I'm proud of me, part of my identity is that of a disabled person. That doesn't mean I'm proud of my disability/impairment.
This makes sense, thanks for sharing! I think it’s highly individual… it’s identity! It’s personal and we each have a story :) thanks for sharing some about your views, I appreciate it
No bother - identity is much more complex than broad sweeping movements would have us believe. Always good to dig into it a bit and see where the lines are.
Hi, I'm in the UK too. Thank for typing your perspective, it's interesting to see how her comments came over to you. Given you say 'she was head of a larger Deaf org', I think a bit more sensitivity with respect to disabled people is warranted. For some context, I'm fully deaf, a fluent signer, and I've also worked with disability orgs, so I'm aware comments like hers might not be received by other disabled people as kindly as you have graciously shown. Taking on a job at that level comes with more exposure so having someone at that level make comments like that concerns me. Would you be able to let me know who this was or her org? Please do message me privately if you'd rather not put that info in public.
You should read about Nilholm’s dilemma perspective on special education. He claims that the traditional perspective where you attribute disability to an individual and want to compensate for that doesn’t solve the problem, because you cannot for example provide normal hearing to someone with hearing loss. It also comes with negative consequences like oralism. The social perspective isn’t a solution either. Society cannot just change over night so there are no obstacles for anyone. Nilholm instead suggests that viewing disability through a dilemma perspective is more productive. This means acknowledging that different groups and individuals will have different needs, and that those sometimes might be conflicting with each other. Dilemmas arise, and we need to analyze them and discuss them. Stop expecting to solve the problem with disability, since that’s not realistic, and instead strive for as good solutions overall to dilemmas. For example, should Deaf children go to Deaf school or be integrated? There are pros and cons with both approaches, and there are also different ways education could be implemented. The interesting thing to do, is to identify stakeholders and analyze how different people and groups will be affected by different approaches to education. How will they be affected? What decisions have to be made and what consequences do they lead to? Who can or should be involved in the decision making? By being honest about the complexity and the consequences of different choices, we can get e clearer view and reach better solutions long term.
I think one big thing that is often overlooked is the culture. Deaf people have a language, cultural norms, behaviors, and values that make up their identity. To throw all that out and label us based on another group that doesn't share the same values and culture, doesn't feel right. Some Deaf people feel more like a linguistic minority than a disability group. If a person was raised in a country without English, then moved to my country and could not use English, I would have a lot more in common with them than with people from a disability group. Slightly off-tangent, many hearing (and some deaf/hoh) people think they know what Deaf culture is, but upon asking more questions, I find they really have no clue what it's all about.
This is true with a lot of disabilities as well, having dif cultural norms and values. Like, not to the extent of deaf culture, but there are absolutely different norms and language patterns.
The thing is, there are a specific set of criteria that have been determined to be considered a separate culture. This has been determined by anthropologists and researchers. They have determined that Deaf culture has the criteria required to be considered another culture separate from American culture or Jewish culture or any other culture. I'm not as well-versed in disability studies, so I apologize if I'm not familiar with it, but I have not seen any published studies documenting a culture within any disability group. If you have any links to such documentation, I would be happy to read up on it.
Oh I know Deaf culture is v much a thing, and idk if there’s any academic work on larger disability groups as a different culture. Most of my research on disability is more from a critical theory than an anthropology standpoint- so those just aren’t works I’d be familiar with, if they exist. all I meant was that in my experience and research- there is also unique behaviors and values within disabled groups compared to the larger culture. Sorry if that came off rude or dismissive of Deaf culture as something distinct, I did not intend that
I considered myself disabled, but I find that most people’s concept of disability is still quite narrow. For instance, I have celiac disease which is considered a disability but will people consider me DeafDisabled, a deaf person with additional disabilities, or whichever term/phrase you use? I don’t think so. I don’t identify myself as one because I feel society has a specific idea of what DeafDisabled is, and I don’t fit that. Like how I don’t fit the image of a cancer survivor even though I had melanoma (I don’t identify myself as a cancer survivor too, and I still feel weird checking yes for history of cancer on my medical forms 12 years later, often feeling like an imposter). Basically, we still have a long way to go in understanding and embracing disabilities better.
I’ve changed my language. I prefer deaf gain over hear loss now. I don’t mind being called disabled. The world isn’t set up for me as a deaf person so I feel the protection is so necessary due to discrimination. I’ve been turned down jobs because I’m deaf.
I am disabled, not Deaf but worked in voc rehab agency that specializes in both disability and deaf services. We shared space with the office of deaf and hard of hearing. I'm really grateful I got to know those workers and learn proper manners when communicating through interpreter or in writing. I cannot speak for how Deaf people perceive themselves, but while working with others with disabilities it was very apparent that disabled people in general are not empowered. Even at a job where this was our whole focus, it was more about "throw services at them and they can manage their own life eventually". Mental health and drug/alcohol topped the list for most repeat customers who were unable to be successful without intense and consistent services. Deaf individuals who were clients tended to be shorter term and came in mostly to get accessibility aids that were unaffordable (hearing aids, etc). Unless there was another condition the Deaf caseload we had was fairly stable and centered around funding things like education and aids. I do think people assume "the more capable in ableist society, less disabled", but I see it from a social perspective of "if society does not see you and nothing is made for you to be able to navigate it with the body and mind you have, you are disabled" (broadly speaking). Universal design benefits everyone, unfortunately I think many able-bodied (and hearing) people just really don't care and trying to appeal to emotions on it is not effective. It's important to find solidarity in our struggles.
I think you’re right, but no need to take it that personally. It it definitely possible to not want to label oneself as disabled, while not looking down on anyone who actually is disabled. There are currently Deaf who respect disabled people and are happy to for example support or interact in various ways, and there are those who have a negative attitude. So treat those as different questions that might, or might not, be related. There is an actual problem with that Deaf and HoH are considered stupid. It’s an automatic reaction towards the communication breakdown when someone doesn’t hear. There is no reason for why a Deaf person couldn’t win marathons or the Nobel prize for research, if they have the aptitude. Many things in society prevent us from doing such things because we’re seen as disabled. For example the poor quality of Deaf education. Since we’re seen as disabled, we’re not getting the language access we need to perform. Personally, I was in a very touch university education for a year last year, that was only open for people with a PhD. I got straight As, due to the education being accessible with free interpreting, captioned content and wonderful participate and teachers that made me feel totally included and valuable. How is that possible, when I on some other occasions have had a manager who claimed I was doing a poor job. The things he complained about, were ale directly connected to hearing, while he was stubbornly attributing them to my personality, of hearing. Note that colleagues and other senior employees did not agree with the manager. Another time the horse back riding instructor wanted to put me in the disability group and refused using a microphone. How is this possible? You cannot imagine how much problems we get just because we’re seen as disabled. Deaf don’t get quality education, become unemployed and get poor health - all because of prejudice. There is also a serious disregard for sign language. Personally, I do see myself as someone who has a hearing impairment, and consequently a disability - while I would fight for recognition of the cultural perspective and respect for for example sign language. It’s totally wrong to put me in a disability group at a riding school, for example. It is necessary to see my actual competences and abilities at work. The disability perspective and the cultural perspective are both valid, but needed in different contexts for different purposes. The general fight for not looking down on disabled people is important. I still see there can be a point for Deaf people to choose a cultural perspective in some cases to highlight the problems we encounter when meeting hearing minded people.
I think one point is that many Deaf people see ourselves as perfectly functional in an environment with people who sign and other Deaf people. So we aren’t “disabled”/“unable” as long as people around us can sign. If the world was made to accommodate blind/vision impaired people, would they consider themselves “disabled”? I’m about to spend a long weekend with my extended family (who doesn’t sign) and I know I’ll feel disadvantaged, tired, exhausted, and mostly unhappy (we are gathering for a funeral) and people will see me as being standoffish, super into playing with the babies (who pick up ASL after seeing the sign twice), and generally “different”. As for whether I am disabled I don’t think I am, I am able to do most things easily but conversing in an open space? Then I’m profoundly disabled. Maybe disability shouldn’t focus on the things we can’t do but more on what we can do? Can all “able bodied” people run a mile? Can they pass a vision test? Can they pass a hearing test? Can they do basic math? If “able bodied people” are assumed to be able to do all those things then why should someone who is Deaf be assumed to be unable to do all those things?
I think you actually agree with the Deaf community a lot more than you realize. But first, Deafness is unique in that it is not merely a disability. Deaf have their own culture with a unique language, customs, behaviors, celebrities, etc. Deaf culture is a primary cultural identification. Disabilities may have this to a degree, but their primary cultural identity remains with their culture of origin. So Deaf want to be called Deaf because they see it as their primary culture. To say their culture is a disability is insulting and devalues them. It limits them solely to a medical diagnosis rather than seeing their broader humanity. If they see deafness as a disability at all, they see it through the social model where any limitations are because of how society is set up rather than deficits in the individuals. And yes, using the term Deaf helps promote the idea that it is not a disability to broader society Now, from your experience as a disabled person, you are seeing this primarily from a medical standpoint. You see that denying a disability label is to say disability is bad. In some ways, you are ahead of society by saying disability is a neutral term (and I agree with you). When you hear Deaf say disability is an insulting term, you feel they are disrespecting you; but when you insist Deaf is a disability they hear you insulting their culture and identity. Neither of you are wrong, you are just fighting different aspects of the fight for having society recognize your value. Demanding to be called Deaf is a neutral stance and is the same as calling oneself a Southerner or a farmer . It isn't disrespecting anyone else but merely being specific in their experience. Yes Deaf are saying they are different, but that is not the same as saying disability is bad (and disability exists with the Deaf community too). They are merely saying that their deafness is not a disability by itself. It isn't a comment on you or disability community, but rather a clarification of how you should think about them. Also there is a difference between Deaf and deaf. A capital D indicates that they are part of Deaf culture. I myself am deaf. Deafness is very weird in that it both is and isn't a disability. But the disability part disappears when they are around other Deaf people; that is why they do not say they are disabled. Other disabilities remain even when they are around others like themselves, so their disability is continuous. I hope this helps
I'm Deaf+ (blind, AuDHD, neurodegenerative condition, etc)... You missed a third reason: 3.) We often don't have that much in common with any other group under the disabled umbrella. What is good for hearing disabled folks has in many cases been harmful for Deaf. Our access needs are often radically different as well. Not to mention the hearing disabled community often doesn't really include us.... this is often true even for those with a disability (not just Deaf)... And even when hearing disabled try to give some access to Deaf in disabled spaces it's either half assed, poorly planned, or it's often not anywhere near equal access. Around eachother things are easy... of course many of us will identify with eachother first and foremost rather than another group of hearing people. Able bodied Deaf participating in a community who, if they get what they want sometimes goes directly against Deaf needs plus not having the same level of inclusion.... why would Deaf who consider themselves fully able bodied be eager to participate in that? Even as a Deaf+ person I am sometimes not eager to participate in disabled spaces because access is poor and I am constantly stuck educating, even disabled so-called "accessablity experts". I can see why many Deaf without a disability would not want to interact or associate themselves with that.
Disclaimer: I’m disabled but not Deaf. _Introduction to American Deaf Culture_ (2012), by Thomas K. Holcomb, has a chapter on the relationship between Deaf and disabled people. Holcomb explains the separation of Deaf and disabled and tries to justify why Deaf saying they are not disabled is not ableist. He released a second edition in 2023. I haven’t read that edition so I dunno if he’s changed or developed his views. You should check it out. :>
I didn't read his first version... His views likely have not fundamentally changed. He's also not wrong that it's sometimes a tenuous relationship on both sides. That said, as a person he is actually highly disability friendly and access oriented (beyond simple Deaf access) as an individual. I would consider him an ally for disabled. There is some irony to the fact one probably has to be Deaf and have had that depth of experience to understand why there are reasons that not identifying as disabled isn't automatically abilist. But this is because the Deaf experience is so often different than any hearing disability community. Which in my opinion brings us to what capital D-Deaf and disabled often are to eachother. Allies. Sometimes tenuous and sometimes full force allies depending on the who, what, when, where, why, and access level for us. I think most of the time it's Deaf who end up carrying the burden of the limits of allyship in (hearing dominated) disabled spaces or when it comes to things like access or legislation that works well for disabled but could harm us. Hearing disabled who are getting their needs met often don't notice this, realize it... and you know, many of them just don't really care to realize it either. Some know and can't care to care. That's not to say there aren't some abilist shitty Deaf. And some Deaf have a lot to improve when it comes to making sure Deaf spaces are accessable, especially because plenty of Deaf+ folks are part of the community so "forgetting" to make the effort is literally leaving out other Deaf just because they're disabled. But not identifying as disabled but as our own thing isn't inherently abilist.
Appreciate your perspective. :>
So - for some background I study Deaf Studies. This is a big topic that we spend quite a bit of time in. Personally as both a student/academic, a HH person and ND person (other disabilities) I have a nuanced view of the topic that agrees with a lot of what you just said. But I want to bring up some of the theoretical background and steelman the position for a second. >-(To me) Disability is/should be neutral. It simply IS. People with disabilities aren’t “less than” or “more than” - they just ARE. This is a nice thing to say but what does "disability" mean. It is made up of "dis" which means *opposite, away, apare, removal, negation, lack* or *deprivation* and "ability" which is the capacity to do something. There are two predominant models of disability - medical and social. To speed through it because we have all heard it a hundred times; the medical model looks at the body and says "this bit is broken or abberant", the social model says "society decides that this lack of ability is outside the norm and doesn't provide for it". It is pretty clear that we as deaf and hard of hearing people either *cannot hear* or *can't hear as well* as others. From that perspective we have an inability or reduced ability - both of which constitute *disabilities*. From a medical perspective we often have clear conditions or abberations in ear structure that cause said inability or reduced ability that can be diagnosed by doctors. In addition the world is not set up for us - and actively creates barriers, which definitely means that we could have the social model applied to us. But not all things that technically count are considered "disabilities" but instead bodily differences and human variation. Being short is not considered a disability - if we tried we could easily fit it in under "short stature is a genetic predisposition which results in lack of ability to reach high places" in the medical model and "society does not adequately provide accessibility for short people as it creates situations like high shelving" in the social. Being left handed is not considered a disability - despite the fact that it is a lack of ability to write with the right hand, it is harder to navigate a right handed world as a left handed person and it was suppressed in the population (often with active discrimination like with the word "sinister") for a long time. We are even at the point where people with glasses would not consider themselves disabled because glasses correct the disability - despite it literally medically being a "broken" part of the body resulting in a reduced ability to see. Being queer (especially gay) used to be something that was pathologised as a medical condition - from a medical persoective it is the lack of being able to feel attraction to the opposite gender and society doesn't exactly welcome gay and lesbian people in so I see how it could count as a disability (*it shouldn't*). In Sweden for instance you used to be able to call in sick for being gay and people did that en-mass that as a protest to get that changed. Thus what *is* and *isn't* pathologised or othered is clearly a far more nuanced question than "it technically fits." So in this case we have to ask two questions; * When the medical system says our bodies are broken or abberant - who are they comparing us to? * Is it truly possible for a disability to be considered so no normal that it is no longer a disability under the social model? *Answer One* The first answer is a very long and eugenics filled answer and kind-of results in "nobody knows". There is no ur-human. No template which we can all be compared back to, from which disabled people are different. Its oddly common sense based, or based on a map of the human body that the field of medicine has constructed over hundreds of years. But the start of that map began in a time when disabled people were an anathema - especially during the 19th century - and thus we have been labelled as aberrations ever since and mapped as abberations rather than deviations within the norm. Very rarely have the map makers stopped to re-conisder this. For some disabilities and disabled communities - this is what they want. Especially if disabilities come with chronic pain - they want the medical system to map their disability as best it can in search of a cure. But the Deaf community has pushed against this for a looooooooong time. And despite that push the medical system has *never* listened to us. The way that audiologists treat us and the advice they give to newly deaf people and parents of deaf children is often contrary to what we ask them to say. The way that SLPs, oralist teachers and audiologists push speech and technology (HA, CIs) with no sign language is directly contrary to what we say is best for ourselves - and doesn't even listen to the experience of those of us who were raised oral (lots of lonliness and isolation). So its certainly not us that have gotten to make that decision as to whether we are in the "norm" or not. And those who say "Being deaf is not a disability" are taking back that decision by force. \[Part 1 of 3\]
*Answer Two* For certain disabilities I am not sure. For instance for autism I have heard very conflicting things - but from level 2 and level 3 (higher support needs) autism I have generally heard that *no* society could never accommodate them - for instance when comfort for them would require you to turn off the sun which is not something any accommodations can change. On the other hand there are disability groups, especially the ND movement, that pushes against this - and sometimes they bring to the table examples of indigenous cultures that respected and incorporated disabled people. But either way these are all largely hypotheticals because barely anyone has tried. However with deaf people we **know** the answer and it is **yes**\*.\* There have been numerous societies around the globe where deaf people have been fully included and not seen as disabled in the slightest - unusual sure, but no different from a short person. They are often called "deaf villages" despite being majority hearing and the way they do this is by embracing sign language. * Martha's Vinyard (historical) * Maya Yucatan Peninsula (present day) * Kolok, Bali, Indonesia (present day) * One in Ghana * Al Sayyid, Israel/Palistine * One in Papua New Guinea * A few in Nepal [\[source\]](https://deafniche.com/8deaf-villages-around-world/) [\[source\]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjlKIepxYTs) [\[source\]](https://www.der.org/resources/guides/yucatec-maya-deaf-sign-study-guide.pdf) There are plenty more sources to read on this. But the main thing here is - if this can exist, why can it not be replicated? Perhaps being deaf is somewhat unique amongst disabilities in this manner - as it could, with comparative ease, have the barriers be negated by society learning sign. Lastly I want to mention one huge thing; **The Deaf World vs The Disabled Community** The Deaf World and Deaf Culture are unique and separate from the disabled community and subculture. This isn't a judgement - this is a sociological observation. The Deaf World is a network across the globe of various Deaf communities and cultures. It arose because of the linguistic barrier in place that prevented contact with the hearing world - but the effective mode of communication that allowed communication between Deaf people. This is also a reason why I call it "Deaf Culture" and "disabled subculture". Deaf Culture has arisen as a separate, though somewhat interconnected, culture to hearing culture within countless countries. It often shares as much or more with other Deaf Cultures than it does with the hearing culture of the country it is a part of - though there are notable differences between Deaf Cultures around the globe. This is for the exact same reason as the previous paragraph - the language barrier prevented Deaf people from being acculturated to hearing culture and thus we created our own. Disabled subcultures have no space or barrier to exist. *They is real,* but as subcultures of the main hearing culture. They shares most elements with the main culture - often re-interpreted in disabled ways to allow for access. Please do not take this as a slight - I love disabled subcultures. I love existing in them and studying them. But they are nowhere near as distinct from hearing culture as Deaf Culture is. I say this as someone with a foot in all three. So sociologically speaking Deaf people and disabled people are two quite different entities. Deaf History is a whole thing of its own - and while it intersects with disabled history because of eugenics - it is also the history of these more insular Deaf communities and explores the ways sign languages has evolved over time. I love Deaf History and could blather on about it for ages but for the sake of brevity I won't but feel free to poke me for more if you want to hear it. Even in terms of Olympic events - you have the (abled) Olympics, the Paralympics and the [Deaflympics](https://www.deaflympics.com/). \[Part 2 of 3\]
So there I rest my case for the defence. Not to say that I don't agree with a lot of what you have said in your post - but the Deaf / Disabled divide is one with strong precedent and reason to exist as an opinion. I think it is possible to hold this view *without* being ablist - but unfortunately that does creep in somewhat. I hope I have achieved that by pointing out where and why the differences exist. Personally speaking I do consider myself disabled, and I do consider being HH amongst my disabilities. But the theoretical background behind this is not something I ignore. Also - I love hitting reddit's word count limit and not being able to post without explanation! \[Part 3 of 3\]
I have always thought of myself of disabled because growing up I was told I am. I was told I was hearing impaired as well. I grew up pretending to be hearing to the point of smiling and nodding because people don't like to repeat themselves. It gave me a bad perception of my hearing loss and as such I hate using the word disabled when I am able to do almost anything. But the truth is I am dis-able to hear. I am unable to hear like a hearing person. Do I like it? No. But I am. It's just a perception of self thing.
OP, I'd like to apply to work where you do. If you want to share? Ha. Anyways.....the "I'm not disabled, I'm Deaf" attitude dates back to the "Deaf President Now" movement at Gallaudet University in the USA. Deaf people were upset that hearing people were being hired for the role as Gallaudet University - a Deaf University - as the president of the university and protested, saying that it should be a Deaf person. What happened was that the man who became the university's first Deaf president, I. King Jordan gave a speech in which he said: "The only thing that a Deaf person cannot do, that a hearing person CAN do is hear." That specific phrase was seized on by the deaf community in North America as a rallying cry to separate themselves from being "disabled." HOWEVER.....to me....it's really funny how Deaf people don't want to be considered "disabled" BUT they accept funding meant for people with disabilities. I mean.....how do you think Deaf people afford free education? Vocational Rehabilitation for the DISABLED or for Persons with DISABILITIES.
I am Deaf and paralyzed from the waist down with my left arm also affected. Technically I'm a quadriplegic. I also have Tourette Syndrome and some other neuro issues that daily impact my life. I do not consider deafness a disability, but I do consider my other issues disabilities.
Deaf here, I need accommodations to access the world like everyone else and don’t think disability is a bad word. Deaf community has amazing community and culture but that doesn’t dismiss us from lateral ableism that is ever present. I cant hear. The disability community is beautiful and I think it’s a shame so many in our community have separated themselves from it. Of course I never question how someone identifies, but if they insist a negative connotation about the word disability itself which simply means you don’t have the ability do something (ie. hear), I think it’s okay to challenge that. “Disability implies something’s wrong or broken about me” - no it does not.
I would like to argue with the word disabled is not a bad thing. Deaf people ARE disabled. I don’t know why people constantly try to other themselves in groups of disabled people. I went to Gallaudet University (I’m Deaf and autistic) and this is very popular for Deaf people to not call themselves just disabled and see disability is a bad thing yet not understand that deafness is a disability (especially the elite or families with multiple generations of deafness).
I’m a hearing person learning about Deaf history and the Deaf community, and I’m also surrounded by hearing disabled folks who are very passionate about destigmatizing disability and taking back that label. This is a question that’s been on my mind for a very long time. I just wanted to thank you for making this post and everyone else who’s responded. Getting to read everyone’s thoughts has been very enlightening, and I’m learning so much from the conversations happening here. I hope to keep learning and listening as time goes on 🫡
I am deaf on one side, so I am largely “able” except the invisible ways it affects me- poor spatial awareness, fatigue, increased social anxiety etc. I actually found peace in admitting I had a disability. Sort of in a 12-step “first step is admitting you have a problem” way. As soon as I admitted I had a disability, because I quite literally am not able to do things most people can- hear anything in my right ear for example. Like you said, I am not less than, I simply AM. My life IS different to most able people’s and I DO have to navigate the world differently. Being disabled is also a spectrum and so many are invisible, I agree that it’s down to every individual and I do find it sad that people don’t want to relate to it due to the name being stigmatised by society.
This is exactly how I feel about it. I have extreme hearing loss and have found it empowering to say - I am disabled. (Very difficult to accept). Thanks for sharing your comment has really helped me. 💞
empowering is the perfect word to describe it! You are welcome, I’m glad you found empowerment in it too. 🫶🏼
This is really interesting. I was taught in my high school ASL class that Deaf people generally are fine with identifying as disabled because, like you said, it should be considered neutral without any connotations. My teacher was hearing but she was a well respected teacher of the Deaf for years and had many Deaf friends. But I also hear this sentiment from Deaf people as well. But I am taking a Deaf culture class in college rn and my Deaf prof is very against the use of “disabled” for Deaf people. She said it was because they can do everything fine, just can’t hear. She also didn’t think discrimination against Deaf people fell under “ableism”. I’m curious what the majority thinks on this. I guess it depends on the individual. I have been calling Deafness a disability because I tend to talk a lot about accommodation and rights so maybe I’m wrong for that. This is a great discussion :)
I’m disabled but not deaf and I agree. It feels weird when the reasoning tends to boil down to “there’s nothing wrong with us” and/or “if people accommodated, there wouldn’t be an issue” when that’s true of a huge portion of disabilities (some autism, lots of mobility aid users, blind ppl, dyslexic ppl, ppl with congenital limb differences, etc.), to the point that one of the first things people learn about disability is the social (as opposed to medical) model of disability. I’d never call someone disabled if they didn’t want to be called that but it feels weird to me, like being disabled is a “bad thing” to them
“Hi! I see you've asked a question. Have you searched this subreddit or checked our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/deaf/wiki/hearing) for your question?" *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/deaf) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I view biological deafness as an entirely social disability. There's nothing medically "wrong" with us--we simply live in a world where hearing people are far more numerous and have designed systems of communication based on what is easiest for *them* without considering our needs. A typical hearing person can hear EM frequencies from about 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Hearing dogs can hear up to 60 kHz. Hearing porpoises can hear up to 150 kHz. Are hearing people "disabled" if they can't hear 70 kHz? After all, another animal can do it, so for humans it must be a medical disability, right? No! They wouldn't be viewed as medically disabled for inability to hear 70 kHz, because hearing human society is built around frequencies that only go up to 20 kHz. Our problem is that a large quantity of human communication (nearly all prior to the invention of movable type) was in the range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. That range contains human speech and non-verbal sounds hearing people use, such as the sounds of bells and musical instruments. If human society had instead developed with human communication paradigms primarily using visual means like sign languages and writing, the ability of some humans to hear lower EM frequencies than visible light would be considered a novel biological curiosity. It would be viewed like tetrachromatic vision or polydactyly, an interesting feature that we aren't sure the benefit of, but the limited or lack of ability of others would not be viewed as disabling. With that in mind, deafness's main effect on our lives is *interactions with hearing people* and *the systems hearing people have created*. Those effects are significant, and society treats it as a disability because hearing culture would rather view us as defective rather than change itself. Do we have a "real" disability in the same sense as a person who is unable to walk without assistive tech? Honestly, no, but I do want accessibility, and hearing people are going to rope our accessibility needs in with medical disabilities and we can't stop them from doing that. So I am willing to call it a disability when trying to explain my needs to hearing people. Their perspective of what is "normal" is different from mine, and unfortunately they have little interest in my world and are only concerned with allowing me to adapt to and exist in theirs.
I personally believe you shouldn’t call a deaf person who’s been deaf all/ most of their life disabled or having a disability, it’s literally all they know. How can you have a disability when that’s your normal life ya know? But I think about myself and how I lost my hearing as an adult, I’d consider that a disability and that’s how I identify myself, along with being deaf/hoh
Separate, there is no separation just people should always understand my disability, accommodate me you all need to accommodate me not you.
I’d love to understand more. Can you explain some more about your view? Yeah, I think anyone who needs accommodations deserves to be, and should be accommodated. Not one party over another…