Consider this from the perspective of a deaf person. While it seems silly from the perspective of a hearing person, a lot of people in the deaf community are concerned that they are viewed as having a problem needing to be fixed, rather than competent, highly functioning people.

▲ commandlinefan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Coming from somebody in the half-deaf community, please, medical science, find a cure for the problem that I have that needs to be fixed.

▲ Auracle 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I understand their perspective but it’s still silly.

I’m a competent, highly functional person. I also have idiopathic hypersomnia and IBS-D. I’d love a fix for either; I want to live the best life possible.

The whole deaf community opposition to treatment reads as just a defensive mechanism. Being deaf means that one of your limited amount of senses doesn’t work. By definition, they’re disabled. That’d be like people whole are really near or farsighted not using glasses because they’ve decided not being able to see is their culture or personality. It’s ridiculous, and that viewpoint should be more than ridiculed when deaf parents don’t pursue treatment for their children.

▲ estearum 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then they can just not get the treatment...?

▲

harimau777 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

Part of the concern is that if a cure for deafness becomes standard, then resources for the deaf community (e.g. sign language interpreters) may no longer be available for people who either cannot or choose not to get the treatment.

There's also an issue that, assuming they work similar in this regard to cochlear implants, the treatment has to be performed at a very young age before its possible for someone to consent or choose whether they want to be part of the deaf community.

	▲	estearum 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I understand these arguments but don't find either of them compelling whatsoever. Here's my test: If my child was deaf and asked me when they were old enough to know that I declined to have them treated based on these arguments, I cannot even imagine them being okay with that.

▲ neonstatic 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What is particularly striking to me is bundling of two factors here:

  - Loss of hearing
  - Identity built around loss of hearing

To me these two are distinct. I don't value people based on their disabilities or lack there of. So for me the ability to fix a body's physical deficiency is always a good thing. It makes life better for the person inside the body. These arguments, that I called stupid, conflate both points and assume that seeing lack/loss of hearing as an impediment automatically passes judgement on people who suffer from it.

I'd also point out that creating an identity around a feature of one's body is a poor man's substitute for loving yourself. No wonder that people who do that get so defensive. Everything becomes a personal attack to them. While it's understandable, it doesn't make it any smarter, wiser, or functional.

	▲	lazyasciiart 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The factor you are missing in the middle is “language and culture developed specifically around this loss of hearing”. The identity isn’t built around lack of hearing, it’s built around a society that will be literally destroyed if the specific feature that mandates membership is eradicated. As an analogy, how would you feel about a new mandate that all babies learn English as a first language?