In a Facebook conversation it got around to the use of the word "Deaf" and how one court is trying to avoid using a noun that create different classes of people such as deaf and hard of hearing. I asserted that by saying "Deaf" will not work to define a group of people with hearing loss since the word "deaf" has been far too long been ingrained to mean one thing. Same goes for "Deaf" as a more recent definition coined by Padden and Humphries back in the 1970s. I have broached this topic a few times in the past.
A comparison was used for the word "Deaf" by using "Blind/blind" in making a case. A term used by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB.ORG):
".... all of their members to be blind regardless of visual acuity."To them it creates a "classless" non-discriminatory definition within their own class of people (B/blind) from those with normal range of vision even though 90% of their members happens to be not legally blind. I'd like to see NAD admit that some of their members are not legally deaf as well even though I suspect some of the NAD officers are pushing for the whole "Deaf" wording. Just a suspicion. Not that it's true or anything like that.
This "Blind" definition is still discriminatory. What I mean is that it still show differences between classes of people from the "haves and have-nots," essentially so. But using the "Blind" description/definition will not work just as "Deaf" will not work. What I am talking about are what people see themselves as.
Let's take the mildest form of hearing loss whether it's in one one or both ears they would not consider themselves as "deaf."
The meaning of the word "deaf" has been ingrained for far too long to mean one thing and that evokes that a deaf person means the person cannot hear a darned thing. In retrospect using "Deaf" won't work to include all people with all range and types of hearing loss. The same goes for "blind" which evokes a description of one who cannot see a single thing. People see "deaf" and "blind" as the extreme end of hearing and visual (acuity) loss, not the mild types. Instead of that, people try and use an alternate "safe" terms like "legally blind" and "legally deaf" to discern the differences but even that can present problems, too. When one says "blind" to what does the term evokes for you? Same for "deaf." What does the term evokes for you? Perspectives vary.
There are people with 20/20 vision who do wear glasses. Are they blind? Hardy. Saying "legally blind" emphasizes the extremity of visual loss as opposed to simply saying "blind" which doesn't help much here. Do people with mild hearing loss considered as "legally deaf"? Even if the person is 1 to 5 db above normal hearing range? Or even 10 dB? The type of accommodation and function between people with vision loss and hearing loss are quite different in level and scope. With glasses you don't miss things visually but with hearing aids you can miss things such as words by not understanding every spoken syllable. There is an inherent problem with the word "deaf" (saying "D"eaf doesn't help either) to include every single people with any amount of hearing loss, even by 1 or 5 dB above normal hearing range. Just won't work. The same goes with the word "blind."
If the court want to create a word that does not break into two different classes of people (e.g. deaf and hard of hearing) then create a word, a noun, that does not carry a stigma. A word that's neutral in meaning. A word that doesn't create a misunderstanding (e.g. deaf, Deaf, blind, Blind). In other words, find something else other than those words because they won't work to fit all people with hearing loss. Just like "Blind." It won't work. Find a noun that fits and describe people with a certain condition. Even by saying "Deaf" is still discriminatory but the word does discriminate between those who cannot hear to those who can hear. It does create a separate class. The problem is the amount of functional differences. Same goes for "Blind."
It's true that we fit in the category of people with hearing loss. There's no denying that. The same goes for those that fit in the category of people with vision loss. But are all of them blind? There's already an inherent problem in using that word, capitalized or not. Not matter what words to use to define a group, it's still discriminating between classes of the haves and have nots, essentially so. People use other terms like "mobility-challenged" instead of "crippled" or "handicapped." But saying "mobility-challenged" evokes extremity of a condition but it's certainly far better than the other two denigrating words. I'm older and can't run like a young teen in a track event but I'm still quick and nimble. Am I "mobility-challenged"?
What about "visually-challenged"? Or "hearing-challenged." Or "hearing impaired" which is about the hearing that is impaired, not the person. Same for "visually impaired." What is the best PC word around to avoid "classes" of definitions and not offend or confuse anyone? Saying "Deaf" will not work.
Good luck with that one.