Two interesting points on this posters comments:
1) there are some "wannabees" in the deaf /Deaf world, that is hearing
people who really feel at home with Deaf people. We sometimes call them
Dearies or Heaffies. There is a sign (in A S L ) that refers to a Deaf
(that means signing Deaf person) who acts/thinks like a hearing person. It
is like the oreo/apple symbols of race traitors. It is very derogatory and
very obvious what it means. We do NOT have an exact sign (that I know of)
for a hearing person who wants to be "IN" the Deaf world. We have CODA's
and interpreters (hearing children of deaf adults are called CODA) who
sign well and are welcomed into the Deaf community regardless of how much
they can "hear". However, there are also outsiders who are curious, like
learning sign language and like the culture, who sometimes "ACT" or try to
be "Deaf" (I have no information on anyone actually deafening themselves
but I know of several who "do" want to be "Deaf". This usually means they
want the status that goes along with MEMBERSHIP (as opposed to the status
of exclusion).
2) There are many (in various countries) rules about the determination of
diability status/ Often these are stringent rules that make it very
difficult to PROVE you are disabled enough to get medical, financial or
social benefits from the state. These RULES are said to be so STRICT in
PART because there SEEMS TO BE an inclination on SOME people's part to
think being disabled is a free ride. I have no statistics on this in terms
of fraud cases proven but I know that the government and insurance
companies argue that the STRICTNESS of the eligibility is because some
people DO WANT TO HAVE THE DISABILITY LABEL ( these people probably do NOT
have an impairment per se but want the "benefits" attributed to being
disabled- such as parking placard, medical coveragr, income replacement.
In MOST countries there is no TRUE benefit in becoming classified as
disabled because the income levels and support are so miserable (this is
also argued to be a way to DISCOURAGE people from applying!) that they
aren t the envy of anyone. However, some people do see the category as an
ADVANTAGE - compared to UNEMPLOYED or MALINGERING !
I think that more thought and applications of our various models to the
policies of disability services (especially income related ones) would
serve us well to understand the demarcation of "disability" and
"impairment" in operationalized settings. Although I reiterate my original
comment that I dont want disability and impairment to b binaries or
opposites or even built on each other.
Tanis
Visit http://members.xoom.com/doetanis1/newhome.html for some links.
Pls send attachments to [log in to unmask] not to this email thanks.
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, acunningham wrote:
> The discussions have been facsinating - also the comparisons with
> Deaf/hearing debates have made me think ( I am Deaf...or is that deaf???).
>
> A question from me first - what is the diference between transgender and
> transexual?
>
> I am trying to put one thought into words but finding it hard. With the
> transexual issue....I have not seen mention of the unique power-shift (as in
> societial power). Where it is male-to- female transexual... the person loses
> the societal power of being a male in the world. But this seems unique to
> that expereince....that is a non-disabled person will not usually "choose"
> to become a disabled person of a hearing person "choose" to become a deaf
> person (this is a simplistic way of putting it..I hope it is understood what
> I mean?)
> anne
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|