35 million have a hearing loss. That’s alot of people and for some reason, people with glasses not not disabled
They didn’t always used to, at least not in Australia. Sign language was a bit shameful and even some deaf people thought it wasn’t good enough to use with hearing children. One older guy I know fingerspelled everything with his parents. They would sign to each other but not to him. Of course sign language is much more respected nowadays (as it should be).
Like you, I know people under 30 who have been punished for signing, one of whom was a native deaf signer, but not allowed to sign at school, and another of whom would get hit on the hands with a ruler for attempting to sign.
Czarcasm and Marley23 : You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reach via reason. I admire your patient, Sisyphian struggle - but it may be time to let the boulders roll to the bottom. 
Yes, it is. Does that mean it isn’t a disability?
It appears to me that that number is supposed to include everybody with significant hearing loss. Not all of them would be considered deaf, and most of them don’t even use a hearing aid, which means they may have trouble but can still function without much of a problem. That’d be similar to what you said about glasses - people with glasses may not see well, but they can still function. The number of people who are totally deaf is more like 1 million and maybe 12 million people have severe hearing loss. Most of them are people who started having loss when they got older.
They are disabled if they still have poor vision even with glasses. If your vision is less than 20/200 with corrective lenses, you’re legally blind.
Of course we are. It’s a very minor disability, and it’s correctable with a trivial and convenient prosthesis - but my nearsightedness and astigmatism are disabilities, comparable to someone who is hard of hearing and uses a hearing aid. I suppose one can draw a distinction between lessened ability and total or relative inability, though.
Everyone is disabled if they don’t have the right accessibility they need
People have unrealistic expections from hearing aids (and cochlear implant which i have both)
Your reply is irrelevant to my comment.
Just to let you know, my cochlear put me in the same decibel loss as those people who can funtion fine without hearing aids. And as far as my daily life, it the same as no hearing at all.
Someone else made that argument earlier. It’s just academic, so it’s not really convincing. You could say (as the other poster did) that we’re all disabled because we can’t fly, but if we are, so what? Then nobody can fly and we can all get by without that ability. You could say everybody who can’t run a four-minute mile is disabled, but again, so what? That doesn’t make much difference in our lives. The comparison between ability and disability is in the typical range of what people can do.
Earlier you said people who wear glasses aren’t considered disabled, but here you’re saying that hearing aids don’t make up for a significant impairment in hearing as well as glasses can make up for a vision impairment. That implies hearing impairment is more disabling.
Sorry, i thought you were saying hearing aids can correct hearing
No, i am saying EVERYONE have something that affect their daily life if they dont have the right tools . So should we call everyone disabled? I mean, what person that don’t have something different about him?
Basically i am saying the term disability is unneccessary.
I think what you’re actually doing is proposing that we broaden the term “disability” until it no longer means anything, and then do away with it because it doesn’t mean anything. I’m saying that that’s not a good argument because all it really means is that we need to have a sensible definition of “disability” (or whatever term you prefer).
Do you think the Americans with Disabilities Act is unnecessary?
I don’t think writing in deaf-glish helps your point that deafness isn’t a disability at all. We are shielded from the idea of disability due to the isolating nature of deafness that makes us live in our own deaf-bubble. But that is exactly the nature of deafness! It’s a disability of relationships far more than it is of sound.
The only rational argument that can be made in favor of deafness not being a disability, IMO, is one along the lines that no disability exists. You are disabled. So am I.
And any caring, loving parent would do anything to alleviate that for their children. It doesn’t mean we’re inferior. It means we’re disabled, and we have something wrong with us that society has an obligation to fix first, and accommodate if that doesn’t work. There are no ifs and buts about it.
Cochlear implants are amazing when implanted in infants, not so amazing when implanted on older people whose brains have been fundamentally re-wired to “forget” hearing, like me. Morally, I believe parents choosing to not to cochlear implant a deaf infant aren’t better than a parent who chooses to not to, say, straighten out an infant’s twisted legs or to fix a hare lip. Perhaps even worse.
I think it should be rename
OK. Do you have any feelings on what the new term should be? I don’t think “diversity” is going to do it. That already means something pretty different and much broader.
Or provide ASL.
While everyone too busy focusing ears and mouth, deaf focus on using eyes and hands
How about accessibility Act
As what-a substitute for the word “disabled”? Damn awkward.
Way to prove my point that the only reason deaf people are unique in believing that their disability isn’t a disability, is because their disability is of an isolating, bubble nature.
To the rest of the world, it’s pretty obvious ASL is not equivalent to, nor mutually exclusive with, a cochlear implant implanted as an infant. But I’m not repeating anything that people haven’t repeated here, so I’ll bow out of this thread.