I said "not disabling", not that deafness is not a disability.

Those two things mean different things to me. Obviously deaf people cannot hear. Not able. Dis-able. Deafness is a disability.

But not all disabilities are generally disabling of individuals. The only disability that deafness causes is a lack of perception of sound.

Hearing people have a panoply of inferences about what that means -- about how it disables and how broadly it disables. And most of them are faulty. It doesn't result in isolation, in particular, in a deaf cultural context. In fact in the deaf cultural context about the only thing missing is some auditory alerts that would be nice as a visual complement, and some aspects of music and the like. Yes. Birds chirping is beautiful. I miss it deeply. It'd be nice to have a world where every kid gets to experience that.

But all of the social and emotional and cognitive consequences imagined of deafness, are not innate to the lack of hearing.

▲

MintPaw 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm empathetic to this argument, but there needs to be some kind of differentiation between preserving culture and abuse for the sake of community. I can imagine the same argument applying to a cult with cruel traditions, or hazing in general.

▲

smaudet 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's more than that (not deaf either) - if suddenly there is a new therapy to grow a third eye in the back of your head, should you?

Or should a fish be able to breathe without water?

In both cases there are ways to function without fundamentally altering the body, and neither is wrong.

It is not so clear that there is "abuse", when there is an empathetic standard of living.

Now to me, the best argument for taking this is that deaf people do have ears, whether or not they function. So it is reasonable for them to experience sound, but also, they have a right not to, if they so choose.

What I think is harder, if you have experienced neither, to be able to make that decision well. And nobody is talking yet about reversing such a therapy...

▲

guerrilla 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Abuse by who? It's themselves who are against adopting it. It's just autonomy at work.

	▲	og_kalu 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Parents and children ? Sure Adults opting out of such treatments on such grounds is fine. Parents doing so to their children, not so much. I mean you can't exactly go, "We'll wait for them to be old enough to make the decision for themselves" for hearing.
	▲	UltraSane 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Abuse of deaf children. Being able to cure deafness in a child and not doing so isn't much worse than intentionally making the child deaf.

▲

squigz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not deaf, so I don't know about the lived experiences of people who are. But I am extremely visually impaired, and if someone said something along these lines about being blind, I'd be... annoyed. Thankfully, people don't often say things they would about being deaf, about being blind, which I've always found a bit odd.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you basically saying that there's no real negative aspects inherent to being deaf, outside of those imposed by society?

▲

smaudet 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Being able to see was more evolutionary pertinent to us. Same with smell...

Animals that can hear extremely well (owls for instance) rely on this trait to be able to survive.

It's always been more important to us to be able to see versus hear things, we evolved our large brains to take advantage of symbols and information. You can hear a symbol but it requires relatively a lot of energy to relay that over any long distance. In contrast, a smoke signal is visible for many many miles.

Things that are seen tend to be more durable, too. A scream lasts for only an instant, but the signs of a scuffle may last for days or weeks. A carving in stone can last for hundreds of years... and many of the things we eat can be seen but not heard (well).

So it is a far bigger deal to us to be blind than to lack any of the other senses.

▲

BeetleB 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you basically saying that there's no real negative aspects inherent to being deaf, outside of those imposed by society?

This is a valid question. My gripe is people aren't asking the obvious other questions:

1. What are the positive aspects of deafness?

2. What are the different aspects of deafness (neither positive nor negative, but leads to a very different human experience).

If either of these significantly outnumber the negative aspects, I can see why imposing a treatment on children without the parent's consent is problematic.

▲

squigz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> 1. What are the positive aspects of deafness?

I think a more appropriate question would be, what are some positive aspects of being deaf, that are unique to being deaf? As you point out a few times, a positive aspect of being deaf, and the main reason it's 'not disabling', is because there is a community around it. But that is not inherent to being deaf, since non-deaf people also have communities; indeed, those same deaf communities could exist as they are even if their members were cured

> 2. What are the different aspects of deafness (neither positive nor negative, but leads to a very different human experience).

Can you elaborate on some of these?

> If either of these significantly outnumber the negative aspects

Also, I surely hope this isn't a simple matter of numbers, right? I mean, surely one has to weigh the severity of the negative aspects in this. "Not being able to hear" is but one negative aspect, but it's a pretty big one.

	▲	smaudet 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Perhaps one advantage that even deaf people might not appreciate - being at "peace". There are many who can hear who crave little or no sound. Being unable to hear is a (semi?) permanent mute button. No noise, just your thoughts and whatever you can see. The biggest downside to being deaf? Missing out on omnidirectional communication. Whether that be hearing the telltale sounds of a critter in the bush, or conversing with someone without sight, that would be the major disadvantage. That being said, it isn't perhaps as big an issue as one might imagine - bear attacks don't happen only to deaf people, plenty of people get hit by buses they could have heard, and often nobody listens to the intercom anyways (sometimes it is inaudible over general noise). The next biggest, probably music. But again, a lot of music is objectively bad (stressed loud notes that are designed to attract attention versus complex or thoughtful melodies), when you reduce many vapid pop songs to their linguistic components, you might suddenly find you aren't missing out on much... I can hear, and I appreciate the convenience. However I also struggle to find auditory peace without jamming my ears with plugs, and I appreciate the calm and quiet... I'm not sure my quality of life is that much better as a result of being able to hear.

▲

bigstrat2003 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I apologize - I should've been more clear but I wasn't taking issue with your post. More that I've seen people in the past who don't want treatments for deafness to even be available, and your comment made me think of that position (which does quite upset me).