Author Topic: If you could change disability jargon...  (Read 1254 times)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5607
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #60 on: 11 Nov 2021 03:09PM »
Education.

It seems to me that for a send child, being in an on-site specialist unit is less excluding than being in the main school, where they stand a far higher chance than other children of being segregated in exclusion cubicles or offrolled.  Where there aren't enough specialist units, an awful lot of send children end up in schools and institutions for pupils that are seen as rebellious and given labels like 'disaffected'.   

By contrast, if the send pupils aren't in the same classroom, but they've got the same playground and the same local after-school and holiday activities, they're mixing with the other children but not put in the "Oh wotsit, that's another one that's ruining our statistics, how do we get rid of them?" category.

If we hadn't got modern academies, happily following the route of American charter schools, with far too many managers creaming off the profits and bullying the teachers to bully the children, whilst those teachers try to find the money to buy the basics for the children, I might feel very differently.

And as far as I'm concerned, what applies to send children in general in education applies to D/deaf children.

In other words, I'm not talking about the ideal education for D/deaf children in the ideal education system, I'm talking about what I think's the best option in a country where public services are being privatised and dismantled.  We can agree or disagree about whether those in power at Westminster should do that, but it's the type of political approach they believe in.

It's an aspect of politics that leaves me feeling very conflicted, because if I were Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, I'd want independence, but as English, I don't want those bits of the UK to leave us because I think (and maybe I'm very wrong) they maybe have a slightly higher proportion of local politicians that are more into providing and ensuring access to publicly provided services. 

But my views on this aren't based on what I'd see as the ideal situation, it's about  my views on the best way to steer send children, including D/deaf children, through the current system.   Being blunt, a specialist send unit can make money educating send children, whereas a mainstream school loses it when they do.  Where I am, non-academised schools have desperate banners outside saying how far they're struggling financially.  They haven't even got enough teachers and other resources even for non-send children.

All that being said, maybe in Wales you have less of a problem with send children in general being offrolled and ending up, if educated at all, in schools for what are perceived as unco-operative troublemakers etc. Is that the case?


Languages and healthcare.

As regards different languages, if it's oral, it's as simple as picking up the phone, dialling an NHS translation service, and switching to speakerphone of it's a physical consultation not a telephone or video consultation.  You have access to interpreters in vast numbers of languages for NHS care. 

On a local level, though, people can and do bring their preferred interpreters for oral and written languages and don't have to prove their qualifications.

So I can't see why a Deaf signer shouldn't have the option of accessing a sign interpreter that uses their preferred sign language via a tablet or other device, or why they shouldn't, like an oral person, have the option of using their preferred interpreter.

My concern here in relation to NHS services is on more than one level.  There's the issue of the rights of signing service users in particular, and the other is the potential knock-on effect on non-signing service users.  If you deny Deaf signers the right to their choice of interpreter, how long before the government feels it has an excuse to take away other people's right to their choice of interpreter? And this isn't even just about the effect on service users, it's about the effect on staff.  Just how many extra clinical errors occur if you deny people access to an interpreter they're confident they can communicate with? 

That being said, as I sat at a table in Westminster, giving evidence to a parliamentary enquiry into NHS cover-ups, which the government then was all too keen to cover-up the conclusions of, I suppose we'd never know.  People could produce statistics by suing, but the massive cuts to legal aid make that far less likely than it once was.

And as will be evident, my biggest concern is in the area of mental health care.  Miscommuncation can lead to being locked up.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

On the edge

  • Marmite 5050
  • Diamond member
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #61 on: 11 Nov 2021 08:26PM »
The rights things produce as many issues as having few do. Mainly because 10m HoH and Deaf all have different ideas of what that right entails or, how it should work, you simply cannot empower 10m people that way it is impossible, no system could make it viable.


The deaf mostly, do not have mobility issues as such and, apart from not being able to hear, communication is their primary issue to address.  I don't feel it necessary then for a specialist environment for that. I'm not dismissing how difficult communication enablement IS for deaf children, but surveys and outcomes in Wales suggest most deaf children can manage the mainstream pretty well so far.  What makes mainstream a deaf 'aunt sally' and sitting 'target' is as agreed support is still not there as it was in the dedicated deaf schools' area, and because 'all deaf together' made that easier (Albeit I maintain very unsuccessful), in raising deaf academic standards or enabling alternative communication options they will need as adults.


In many respects as an adult, choice doesn't come into it via an employer or work area, deaf need at least the minimum ability to follow written and spoken direction.  Employers despite access to work etc, have too many hearing alternatives to make the effort to educate a worker on the job itself, and having a communicator with every one of them is impossible and unrealistic.  A small percentage will not manage to reach the required levels, even with support.  Deaf areas suggest ALL are like that, I don't agree and statistics agree with me too.


As regards to the politics of it, I cannot be bothered with it, I tend to strip issues down to basics and work from there and have my own view as to which way forward may work, everybody has their view too. Privatization is a bit of a grey area, are charities privatizing support?  The RNID set up numerous 'Deaf Social care and MH places', this year decided they were a bit of an albatross around their neck and have sold (or are selling them off TO  other private areas), now.  If we look at BSLitself it is near all privatization and random/freelance.


As stated in another reply, resistance is there to set up a viable and 'national' setup because interpreters are against or resisting it via wages etc. It's a fallacy to suggest deaf support isn't privatized already apart from schools.  When BSL became a saleable 'commodity' hearing professionals moved in.  Deaf failed to run a system themselves, they were too busy arguing culture and language to set up education properly.  What they propose is some back to the future setup that failed last time, and now, professionals via teachers etc, would need re-training in all sorts now including managing deaf children in the mainstream to integrate where possible with hearing peers, something not possible in a deaf school where deaf are kept apart.


It needs some drastic approach, they say my suggestions are too drastic and deny deaf choice.  I just don't see this cacophony of 'difference' and rampant idealism,  helping the deaf one iota, we cannot afford to live Great Garbo lives just to keep the cultural purists happy, most of who have NO deaf children.  9 out of 10 have no deaf parents, we need to get real. BSL education is a pipe dream and currently unviable, not least, because there are no trained deaf teachers to make it work, or, an agreed curriculum to use either.  At best what you would see is some sort of 'tiered' deaf education with an odd few following a BSL route and everyone following the mainstream route, just more issues to address.


Everyone talks as if parents should have no input themselves, it isn't a 'Deaf' issue alone, you need parents to go with it.  So far cultural campaigners have launched attack after attack on parental choice. A recipe for parents ignoring the 'Deaf way' as wrong for their kids.  Would ANY parent just stand aside and let deaf campaigners tell them what to do, or, how their child should be educated?  Parents have listened to their argument but found deaf still went at them when they decided against.


The state does have input obviously, they set up UK educational approaches, it is basically geared to master the 3R's and ENGLISH, I know 'faith schools' operate differently, but there is a lot of opposition to those as they teach different lifestyles, different languages (!), and different values.  The state doesn't really want that approach and education is the key to blocking a lot of it.  We are educated to work in the UK environment, predominantly a hearing one, so any groups outside that are going to struggle, the deaf are one of those groups.


Do we really think empowering everyone to do as they wish or believe is viable in the scheme of things?  I'd say no personally.  In my day, education was geared to make us 'factory fodder', the tuition was geared to ensure we can contribute to the industries of the country. It wasn't tuition where you could please yourself what language you wanted to use or what culture you wanted to live with, it was just the tools to 'do the job' BSL is not a tool I feel, a tool that can enhance that, you need to be able to follow what hearing do.  If you want to do BSL socially nothing is there to stop you.  BSL is a social tool, it hasn't the language or technical references, (Including education), or the signs, people are being idealistic and not realistic.


BSL is incomplete as a language, there are little or no academic references.   Deaf scientists/professionals currently (what there is of them), are having to invent their own. I think SEND is a lottery personally. Dependant on funding, not need, and all LA's I know are broke as it is.  Having waded through the Autistic SEND systems I had to do it all myself, and there is still no parental backup.  Wales has argued 25 years about it it still hasn't happened. I don't know about regional independence, none of it can happen whilst Westminster holds the cash card and doles it out politically.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5607
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #62 on: 11 Nov 2021 09:37PM »
I'm struggling a bit to make sense of your arguments, mainly, I think, because you, like me, take into account a lot of intertwining issues.

You seem to be saying that send education is problematic in Wales, yet seem to say it's not a problem for Deaf children.  Does that mean that you think that Welsh schools cope better with providing for Deaf children than other send children, or that you think the children themselves cope better?

What is it about hybrid systems with deaf units and other sorts of send units on campus that you don't like?  I wonder whether my bias is just from having been involved in the education system for many years in relation to 'disaffected' pupils and having seen what a high proportion of the ones dumped by mainstream schools and picked up by establishments like ours (which you'd probably loathe because we used the charity tax system to ensure our funding went to the pupils not to profit-makers) were actually pupils needing extra support and not getting it.  I'd rather see pupils needing extra support being in a specialist unit than offrolled.

But I think from what you say mainly you come from the perspective of a system where there isn't much offrolling.  Am I right?

As regards your reference to mobility issues, I don't understand the relevance.  I don't mean that I objecting to your referring to them, I just don't get the point you're making or what it relates to.  Could you clarify?

Then again, when it comes to rights, people do indeed have different views of their rights, but you don't necessarily have to take away one person's rights in order to improve another person's rights.  But I think we're never going to agree as to your idea that in relation to healthcare Deaf people should be denied the right that hearing and deaf people currently have to choose the language support of their preference where it's available, be that through an official system, through an alternative interpreting service, or whatever volunteer they can find.

I have visions of your leading a campaign for compulsory official BSL intepreters, the NHS bringing that in, and me setting up a fundraising campaign to get an equal rights case pushed through the courts to give Deaf health service users the same rights as other health service users.  Otherwise, today take away a Deaf signer's right to the communication assistance of their choice, tomorrow take away mine.

I confess I find some of your views rather depressing.  I'm guessing you feel that way about some of mine.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

On the edge

  • Marmite 5050
  • Diamond member
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #63 on: 12 Nov 2021 10:47AM »
Not at all I respect everyone has a right to disagree and a view, we do seem to be discussing it here without things being thrown lol.  I find it depressing there are people who don't follow the rights thing or use it properly, these days anyone can launch the case of a right and challenge a right to lesser support and establish a right to risk themselves.  (Then launch another when things go wrong!). Maybe I care too much to see the lack of logic in this. Need before preference is my mantra.


Yes, I feel deaf management better in Wales, other areas don't do so well.  It's quite a 'fragmented 'community here, with few clubs, no deaf schools, and a lack of support really for a BSL Bill either. The thing about separate areas in mainstream schools (Annex's), is they differentiate by default, so encouraging what I thought were micro-deaf systems in the mainstream which isn't toting the mainstream ethos as I understand it.  I suppose it can be argued that a lack of in-class support with hearing peers lacks support.  I did say that was an issue to address and 'inclusion' would be less tokenistic that way.


I attended a PHU myself as an ADULT in college as part of a government training scheme.  I was remarkably unimpressed with the PHU there.  Albeit that as deaf teens in a college not primary or secondary education.  They had note-takers for their classes.  My own issue of acquired deafness, more work experiences and managing the systems unsupported appeared to surprise the teachers there.  Maybe it's time I put my experiences out there, then others may understand better where I come from.   


I think where annexes can opt-out, is because parental support is there on the spot, as averse to residential deaf schools where parents did not see their kids for months on end.  It tends to cloud mainstreaming a bit, but, parents wanted it.  Autistic/SEND support is well known an issue to me as I have an autistic son, maybe readers wanting to know HOW two deaf adults brought up an autistic child despite the care and social services system, would clear that up.


I still don't see why anyone would object to deaf (Or any other disabled person),  having assurance they would always get the right support, as I said they can still have a relative with them, nobody is denying them 'support' in a personal sense.  I've conversed with CODA's and many of them would love to see the onus of support being given to the systems and would feel happier their parents deaf had professional support at all times.  My approach was double-edged in that an amount of onus was also put ON deaf people, as I think this helps them become more independent and enhances personal decision-making, as they get communication more clearly, and without bias, something perhaps a friend or family support may not always do.


It is to break the circle if possible of reliance on others.  You cannot make proper decisions if you don't have all the facts put to you or explained properly.  Some deaf ARE lazy there are no two ways about it, it's worked for them for x amount of years why change it?  and although they argue choice, reliance is dependence for them as averse to interpreter help where you have a better option to 'choose'.  An interpreter has no axe to grind no bias to give, they can be sacked for doing it.  'family' who 'find it easier to be selective on how much they impart to relations for reasons of their own, should not be there at all, and if there, they can be corrected so the deaf client/patients DOES know everything (Or as much as they are able), they need to know, to make real choice.


Deaf accept interpreters as a way of life (Those that use them), but recent campaigns and rights issues have exposed the fact less and less are now opting for that pro support. In Blaina wales, there was a report of a young deaf man of 18 (Well 18 is young for me lol), who had never used BSL support in his life, born deaf, his mum and dad did everything and still do, he'd never contacted the system personally for anything.


What would happen if Mum and Dad could no longer do that, or, he had a relationship and moved out e.g. who would do it then?  He had a very naive view of being able to manage alone, and no experience of ever having done so.  As regards to private education or special education, there is a train of thought they institutionalize the disabled. Indeed deaf 'education' was just that and abuse a norm. 21stc approaches don't really change the view, just goalposts have moved to make such institutionalism more 'acceptable'.  Be it closing special schools and creating 'annex's' or establishing PHU's instead.  Intended as 'half way' house approaches there is a danger they become an accepted norm.


The deaf bottom line is not inclusion or even full access, it is to preserve their way of life.  It's a strong stance to come from.  Acceptance just means they want the mainstream to accept that.  The emphasis not being rally on evidence, personally I think they are on a loser and delaying the inevitable.  CI's/Technology etc have given options older deaf never had.  The systems being as they allow all sorts of challenges but I don't feel a lot are based on independence or even education.  Deaf can reach a plateau after leaving school and don't access FE or even improve their own signing skills after.


Hearing have no choice, if they do that, they get left behind.  10 minutes ago is history.  I don't know why the deaf cannot see their need to do the same.  There are more options for support to re-train or update skills they need, that schools didn't teach them. We are seeing little demand sadly.  My school teachers wrote in my terminal report, 'He is near deaf, I doubt he will ever master writing his own name in the future..'  I think even these ramblings suggest he was wrong, I went to night schools and everything, I was the ONLY deaf person doing that.  Necessity was the driver, that, and no one else to help either.
« Last Edit: 12 Nov 2021 10:56AM by On the edge »

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5607
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #64 on: 12 Nov 2021 10:48PM »
There's a lot of interesting points there.

My objection isn't to ensuring Deaf signers have appropriate support, it's to obliging Deaf people to use official support and not giving them the options that oral people have.  I am not obliged to use a particular interpreter.  I can ask for one, but don't have to use one.

You say that "An interpreter has no axe to grind no bias to give, they can be sacked for doing it."

I think this is an area where we might disagree.  You see, I'd see an official interpreter in the health context as having a bias in the form of staying on the right side of those in authority in the NHS in order to keep the job.   I would see them as having an incentive not to point it out if they found that the person they'd been called in to interpret for didn't fully understand them or signed in a dialect they didn't fully understand.  They have an incentive not to say if they lack a specialist area of knowledge or vocabulary or experience translating a particular sort of concept. 

Yes, cynical of me, but my cynicism is born of long experience of bias and incompetence in parts of the NHS.  That doesn't mean that I'm not aware of or don't appreciate the parts that are good.  My mother didn't just practise in a hospital, she headed up her team/department.  My father got his title for services to the NHS.  My first job on leaving school was in the NHS and as an army medic, I liaised with NHS personnel.  I have literally cried with gratitude over kindness shown to me and mine by various NHS personnel.  I have also cried with despair over cruelty and corruption by NHS personnel.

That doesn't mean that I think that relatives, friends and community support people can't have their biases - obviously they can. If what you said was not that people should have to have a BSL interpreter but that for certain sorts of treatment there was a requirement if a patient is a signer to have a BSL interpreter present with a view to spotting coercion, then that would make some sense.  But again, we don't oblige oral people to do that. 

I suppose that if it became the case that official interpreters were obligatory, it could be a useful driver to push for good quality BSL teaching for all Deaf people as a priority over English to ensure they weren't disadvantaged by not being able to have their own choice of interpreter.  Maybe also a big push for courses in English as a foreign language to be matched by courses in BSL as a foreign language.

I wonder whether living in a very, very multilingual urban area biases me on this? If, for instance, a patient goes to see a GP in the surgery I use, they typically have a choice of consulting a doctor with reasonable fluency in a range of languages, and if not, get on the phone for more, but I struggle to imagine any of the doctors there saying "Sorry, can't see you, you'll have to book an appointment with an official interpreter."

In other words, where we part isn't the issue of whether we should have more, fully trained, competent BSL interpreters available as wanted and/or needed by NHS patients, it's simply your assertions in various words that signers should be obliged to use them.  I suppose the compromise would be to give Deaf signers the right to their own interpreter as well as the official one, to monitor whether the official one was fully able to translate into the relevant form of sign or hybrid communication used by the patient.

As for the schooling thing, there's much food for thought in what you say and I'm tired tonight so I'll take another look.

I do wish, though, that I'd had the option of partially signed education in my deaf school years.  I personally found it very socially excluding being the only one in class just sitting there copying out of the textbook, oblivious to the conversations.  When my hearing improved later, it made it much better, although far from good in a bullying school environment.

I think that these days if I'd been in an academy I'd have been offrolled in months.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5607
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #65 on: 12 Nov 2021 10:49PM »
Either tomorrow or the day after, I'll read your last couple of posts again, OtE.

I went shopping today and ran an errand for a disabled neighbour and I'm in that state I get into where I'm drained but also not relaxed.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

On the edge

  • Marmite 5050
  • Diamond member
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #66 on: 13 Nov 2021 10:51AM »
There's a lot of interesting points there.

My objection isn't to ensuring Deaf signers have appropriate support, it's to obliging Deaf people to use official support and not giving them the options that oral people have.  I am not obliged to use a particular interpreter.  I can ask for one, but don't have to use one.

You say that "An interpreter has no axe to grind no bias to give, they can be sacked for doing it."

I think this is an area where we might disagree.  You see, I'd see an official interpreter in the health context as having a bias in the form of staying on the right side of those in authority in the NHS in order to keep the job.   I would see them as having an incentive not to point it out if they found that the person they'd been called in to interpret for didn't fully understand them or signed in a dialect they didn't fully understand.  They have an incentive not to say if they lack a specialist area of knowledge or vocabulary or experience translating a particular sort of concept. 

Yes, cynical of me, but my cynicism is born of long experience of bias and incompetence in parts of the NHS.  That doesn't mean that I'm not aware of or don't appreciate the parts that are good.  My mother didn't just practise in a hospital, she headed up her team/department.  My father got his title for services to the NHS.  My first job on leaving school was in the NHS and as an army medic, I liaised with NHS personnel.  I have literally cried with gratitude over kindness shown to me and mine by various NHS personnel.  I have also cried with despair over cruelty and corruption by NHS personnel.

That doesn't mean that I think that relatives, friends and community support people can't have their biases - obviously they can. If what you said was not that people should have to have a BSL interpreter but that for certain sorts of treatment there was a requirement if a patient is a signer to have a BSL interpreter present with a view to spotting coercion, then that would make some sense.  But again, we don't oblige oral people to do that. 

I suppose that if it became the case that official interpreters were obligatory, it could be a useful driver to push for good quality BSL teaching for all Deaf people as a priority over English to ensure they weren't disadvantaged by not being able to have their own choice of interpreter.  Maybe also a big push for courses in English as a foreign language to be matched by courses in BSL as a foreign language.

I wonder whether living in a very, very multilingual urban area biases me on this? If, for instance, a patient goes to see a GP in the surgery I use, they typically have a choice of consulting a doctor with reasonable fluency in a range of languages, and if not, get on the phone for more, but I struggle to imagine any of the doctors there saying "Sorry, can't see you, you'll have to book an appointment with an official interpreter."

In other words, where we part isn't the issue of whether we should have more, fully trained, competent BSL interpreters available as wanted and/or needed by NHS patients, it's simply your assertions in various words that signers should be obliged to use them.  I suppose the compromise would be to give Deaf signers the right to their own interpreter as well as the official one, to monitor whether the official one was fully able to translate into the relevant form of sign or hybrid communication used by the patient.

As for the schooling thing, there's much food for thought in what you say and I'm tired tonight so I'll take another look.

I do wish, though, that I'd had the option of partially signed education in my deaf school years.  I personally found it very socially excluding being the only one in class just sitting there copying out of the textbook, oblivious to the conversations.  When my hearing improved later, it made it much better, although far from good in a bullying school environment.

I think that these days if I'd been in an academy I'd have been offrolled in months.


I'm aware of confidential issues between deaf signers and BSL interpreters.  A number of deaf prefer named terps, aka terps they know personally from regular usage or even terps that attend their deaf clubs.  It can follow they confide in their terp on personal issues AND, ask 'what do you think?'  Most is a throwback from the old deaf social services areas where they did much the same because that social worker/s were their only access to the world outside.  It has to be said at the time, a lot of Social workers for the deaf were quite drunk with the power they held over deaf lives.

Which was birth to death in the past, they were there when your kids were born, when you got married, divorced, ill, got a job, when relatives died, they handled your written post, managed your finances, and bank accounts. Years ago young deaf campaigned against it for themselves, the older deaf didn't want it changed.  Youth prevailed, most UK deaf social service provision ended altogether, as young deaf demanded access to interpreters that were not enabled with the same powers social services had, the current system.  They won the case when it was revealed less than 35% of all deaf social workers had the qualifications required in sign language.  BSL is a NEW format, 888 is etc sign was what you could follow before (Of a sort!), BSL wasn't any sort of organised 'language' or had a norm of any description.

I wonder at times IF BSL interpreters are even dedicated to empowering deaf to manage their own lives, after all, if they do that who needs them? BSL interpreters today are still put on the spot by deaf people asking for their advice, official, they cannot do that, unofficially, they don't want to appear remote to their clients.  There are issues of support for the deaf to have terps they personally know as a 'right'. Familiarity breeds contempt springs to me, and some terps can become 'social workers' by default, without any qualification, and despite their own rules.  It becomes difficult because the deaf world is so small and interpreters are too, so it is inevitable many terps are personally known to everyone else in the clubs, and yes, deaf clubs are well known for a total lack of privacy and deaf discuss very personal issues very openly as well! A tip, NEVER discuss personal issues in a deaf club EVERYONE will know about it.

This familiarity is what I am not in favour of.  I saw one deaf woman signing her pin number in a club.  I have some sympathy for their support, but rules must be adhered to. It comes under the official secrets act.  It's common a terp and a client can be in a deaf club and then start discussing previous support and issues, all in front of everyone else, and some terps are happy to do that And some discussing other clients' issues!).   Theoretically, you can report them and they are not allowed to work with deaf anymore, certainly not the same client, it's a violation of their work description.  Again rights campaigners and that poor charity the BDA endorse ALL these vauge 'right's. If a terp can not do these things, then family can't either in my view.

I'd be the first to agree sign seduces deaf at day one and then this adds to a reluctance to adopt any sort of alternative later, hence bilingualism is a huge con act really, what we see is what we get!   Deaf schools are proof enough of it, and as adults, the mindset continues.  If you use BSL as a first means/language to start with then that is setting the direction after regardless of what else you insert as communication assists.  We live in a hearing world, not a deaf one, an English-speaking one, not a BSL one, and the deaf world cannot support us and its a way of life that is losing ground to progress, regardless of what you or I feel.

I see it as a positive, as I can recall the bad old days, but I embrace the new.  Younger deaf will just laugh at the way deaf went on in the older times, as youth always does. It's their future.  I think they want more of what hearing already have, and know adaptation is the way to get it.  The net has changed a lot so the old guard has become very adept and 're-branding' what access and inclusion means, and, what we all want.  Smoke and mirrors is the net game.  Whether you can re-establish the old system and call it something else now is doubtful. 21stc won't adapt to the 19th or 20th.
« Last Edit: 13 Nov 2021 11:03AM by On the edge »

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5607
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #67 on: 14 Nov 2021 09:49PM »
Quote
This familiarity is what I am not in favour of.  I saw one deaf woman signing her pin number in a club.  I have some sympathy for their support, but rules must be adhered to. It comes under the official secrets act.

I give up.  The occasions when a woman, signing or oralist, disclosing her PIN number would amount to a breach of the OSA would be laughably rare.  If she had sufficient security clearance to hold a PIN number for something where dislosure would amount to a breach of the act, she'd be unlikely to be daft enough to disclose it other than to people with the necessary need to know. 

If you seriously believe that such a rare likelihood justifies denying Deaf signers the same right as oralists in relation to choice of interpreter for purposes not impacting on state security, we've nothing whatsoever in common. 

(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5607
Re: If you could change disability jargon...
« Reply #68 on: 15 Nov 2021 02:29PM »
(I've moved the post I made here to a new thread.  It wasn't about D/deaf issues.)
« Last Edit: 15 Nov 2021 06:05PM by Sunny Clouds »
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)