Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!104!809!Karen.Keil
From: Karen.Keil@f809.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Karen Keil)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: just some thoughts
Message-ID: <15633@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 16 Nov 90 15:01:45 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Karen.Keil@f809.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/809 - Fantasy Mountain, Golden CO
Lines: 25
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 11726

[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]

I agree with you on labels for deaf and hearing people.  I myself refer 
to hearing people as 'hearing people' or 'normal people' (no put-down 
meant for using the word 'normal'.)
        As for deaf people, I use either 'deaf', 'hearing-impaired', 
'hard-of-hearing' (depending on the person).
        I have been deaf since birth, but was initially only severely 
hard-of-hearing.  But my hearing has degraded to be profound now.
        I'm oral speaking and do not use sign language, even though I 
did learn about 300 signs in 1987.
        Let's face it--oral speaking skills/lipreading aren't the whole 
answer for everyone; neither is sign language for everyone.  It just 
depends on the individual.  In my case, oral skills have served well 
but not perfectly.  The only real solution to trouble-free 
communication is normal hearing, but others may disagree.  Just some 
thoughts here to contribute to the forum....
        So long for now--
Karen

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!104!809!Karen.Keil
Internet: Karen.Keil@f809.n104.z1.fidonet.org