Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
From: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Deaf and/or Hearing Impaired
Message-ID: <17908@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 28 Feb 91 16:09:13 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:300/14 - The Emerald Isle, Tucson AZ
Lines: 23
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 13757

[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]

Anne, for one thing, culturally Deaf people resent the term impaired
because it implies something is wrong with us. It's a hearie label
for us. Amng ourselves, we reject it. We are "deaf" period. Its partof
who and what we are and we feel comfortable with it, thank you.

In fairness, what you say about adding all the terms is true. It does
seem silly. Personally, I don't care much for what the operator says
as long as my call gets through ok. However, I wrote the above to tell
you how "deaf" comes into it. One wants tobe "hearing impaired", let
them. One wants to be "deaf" under what circumstances are they to be
denied this?

I wrote an earlier post onthis topic. It might be one way to handle
this matter. Or one can do what I do. Call me what you will, doesn't
matter as long as I know who I am.

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org