Just when you thought there could not be any more diversity extant, a major area of the hearing loss community, has dropped the basic stereotypes of deaf/HoH/HI and 'Deaf' to declare they wish to be known as 'Trans-deaf'. They redefine themselves via the following major differences to the 'Deaf Community' and sign-language-using minority.
Bronwen Artur sent us this podcast for ATR Media (Cymru), of a discussion with Mervyn James, a profound deaf man, regarding his suggestion he and others be called Trans-deaf persons. It contains no sign language, reasons will become apparent...
Bron: "How can the trans terminology, be applied to deaf people with no gender description inclusion?"
Mervyn: "The dictionary definition and the general acceptance and rights, do not define gender as the sole basis for using trans terminology, as people with hearing loss, we are using the term to describe basic and diametric differences that exist in the hearing loss lifestyle, culture, social, loss disability, access, inclusion, and support needs. Basically, so the wider mainstream does not label us as just another sign language-using stereotype."
Bron: "Are there no trans individuals in the hearing loss area?"
Mervyn: "Trans in this respect describes different areas unconnected with sex or gender. There are areas already who describe themselves as trans and use it to describe a preference to be recognised as individuals, with individual needs. We believe using 'trans' in the hearing loss sense raises the profile of 300,000 in Wales with hearing loss hitherto ignored, I understand there is some opposition to this term being applied but that is down to the assumption it is sex/gender-based. Let's bury that assumption here. It is in response to the media and mainstream, already baffled by the rising demands of trans acceptances and the almost daily addition of more trans definitions. It is about our difference, and own perceptions of difference, which we feel is our right to state too."
Bron: "Just how do people who are deaf differ from 'Deaf' people, I don't understand, Deaf sign, deaf don't, they hear with hearing aids?"
Mervyn: "Well, if you are profoundly deaf then you don't hear anything! It is a clinical fact. Currently, anyone with a degree of hearing loss can call themselves deaf, it's a social versus a clinical model of the disability or how the person views its effect. Another distortion doing the rounds is that ALL deaf sign, you pay your money, etc, it is the hype of successful, but misleading, or false campaigning slogans, as it uses BOTH deaf and Deaf terminology in the campaigns. In clinical terms, both areas can be deaf, even sign language use doesn't mean the user is even deaf. Campaigns leave that open to misinterpretation. It is clever lobbying, 15K English BSL deaf can become 150K etc. There is complete confusion of statistics as to who they are talking about. The key is to keep society always on the back foot. You have made the point I was making. It is lack of awareness, lack of understanding, and this has reflected on our area negatively, via a lack of access, covert discrimination, and poor care and support."
Bron: "Can you give us any examples, of what you mean?"
Mervyn: "We can demonstrate statistics, but that is playing the system games, lies, damn lies etc, none are accurate, none validated, consultation doesn't take place, nobody but vested interests participate, it is all done by rote, and people read into them what they want to read, or manipulate them (for kudos/gain mostly), charities for funding, campaign areas for publicity. The state has no statistics but the NHS, who are prevented from identifying those with hearing loss by law, and relies on the same people wanting money/funding from them to provide 'facts', who can in effect quote any number they please, obviously the higher the number, more demand for funding appears. The BDA declared a 10X increase over 2 years e.g. It was never validated.
Bron: "Are you saying, charities lie to get funds?"
Mervyn: "Well misinform, distort, or blur the numbers, yes I do. 1 in 6/7 may well have hearing loss or deafness, but no statistic says they all require help or support, and no statistic says they are all deaf. Local authorities/regional governments declare very little demand, and they are the people who are by law obliged to provide support. The NHS only tells us how many have hearing loss, (the clinical statistic), which charities then can 'suggest' means all of them need help and aren't getting it. Obviously, the state tends to go via how many ASK for it. If we can take e.g. the case of NHS/999 access, then you are more likely to be offered BSL (British Sign Language), support than any other communication format, regardless of hearing loss degree, personal preference, or established need. In the case of Wales, over 50 BSL interpreters exist for less than 800 sign users there, again we don't know how daily reliant on BSL they are, or if they utilise alternatives about their daily lives, or indeed how often they use an interpreter. Part of the issue is the 'global' view of the UK that ignores devolution. It's common to read English campaigns being sold as Welsh, Irish, and even Scottish ones. Such ignorance existed during the BSL Act lobby, who were unaware Wales had no need for it, and still hasn't adopted the Act.
Indeed the BSL Act lobby launched in Wales came from Newcastle and Manchester, but 'sold' as a welsh lobby. Cardiff held a meeting about it, only 9 deaf attended. Sign language is just one option open to deaf people among others. E.G. Only 2 STTR's (Speech to text), operators were listed as available for deaf and others with hearing loss who may prefer text access, with waiting times up to 6 weeks or more, there is no organised system like BSL for others with hearing loss, BSL interpreters are primarily freelance people who don't rely on it as a full-time job, this could suggest far less demand exists for BSL than is being claimed.."
Bron: "So people with hearing loss suffer a shortage of text professionals, lip-speakers, note-takers etc, but the Signing Deaf show demand for BSL, those with hearing loss do not, is that correct?"
Mervyn: "It is more the case the acute, or non-extant shortage of help, suggests any demand we make is academic, that doesn't mean the demand isn't there. It is a 'chicken and egg' situation. 10m with hearing loss in the UK have to fend for themselves mostly, maybe using text on mobiles, or apps, or asking relatives to make oral calls, manage their internet access, etc, technology has been a boon, but personal interactions and support is still dire. Access isn't working with the NHS/999, or other vital systems like the DWP. System areas and charities are currently pouring funding into sign language accessible contact instead because regular income is there, a new BSL Act has emerged, Wales didn't need it, because BSL users in Wales got full access nearly 15 years ago. Access has become the norm for the welsh sign user, and no access, the norm for everyone else with hearing loss.'
Bron: "There are charities who can provide what you need, the RNID or the BDA, even the NADP, without taking the extreme act of using the 'Trans' term to get it?"
Mervyn: "We make no apologies for using the term. It is no more extreme than people using trans terminology to describe every preference they may have, ours is about recognition and support for our hearing loss. We believe it will be really effective in making systems and the government take more notice of our needs, the means justify the ends. Sign language has been effective in ensuring that area gets them included. We needed another 'angle' because sign-accessible systems cannot be accessed by us, it demands we sign too. We need systems that cater for our needs. We are left out of 'Deaf' access, even via an equality law designed to include deaf people. The BSL Act, via culture and sign, excluded us by default, it was a singular attempt to divide deaf people via formats they used, that dumped millions with hearing loss too, it is ludicrous we would have to campaign for an Act for us, whatever happened to inclusion? 2% of deaf people set up a system that was applied to 10m others by default. Systems and charities also failed to include by endorsing the subtle capitalisation of our profound loss, which we won't recognize on those divisional terms. It creates resentment."
Bron: "You say charities excluded, what do you mean? How are they they doing that?"
Mervyn: "You mentioned the two major hearing loss charities, RNID, and the BDA, actually, the BDA (British Deaf Association), has no hearing loss community members in it, it has a very loose 'affiliation' system which they go with to enhance own area mostly. Affiliations suggest division too and the endorsement of it. The BDA has less than 1,000 UK members, the majority of whom are 'passive', i.e. take no active part in what the BDA does, the RNID is the same. The BDA are remnants of older deaf school people, brought up with huge BDA involvement in the past, but is hardly relative today, as Wales, has no deaf schools. It exists via sectarian-type approaches to 'defend their culture'."
Bron: "Defend it against who?"
Mervyn: "Against anyone who suggests they should utilise alternatives to sign language. It isn't feasible in my view to expect a hearing society, or a hard of hearing society, to adapt to them. The BSL Act simply endorsed their own view they are not going to make efforts to be included themselves, and that is now legally recognized as a right via their 'culture'. They want everyone else to adopt sign language for them, it is doomed to failure, especially with poor integration advice coming from community leadership rooted in the past. Their leadership demands are to maintain isolation approaches.. Personally, I feel the BDA is the root source of that, using paranoia as a means to control vulnerable deaf people. I also feel most deaf people know it, hence only 1 in 15, profess any support for it. They rely on old people in deaf clubs mostly."
Bron: "The RNID caters to your area doesn't it?"
Mervyn: "Yes, and No, inclusion being relative, as to gain funding and support, the 'Deaf and Hearing Impaired' remit is mandatory. It suggests inclusion and equality but follows the 'money/services' BSL provides. Primary BSL demand comes from a singular source in the UK, London, and the South East of England, which has 44% of all deaf signers living in, or near there, campaigns are city-based. It is important to point out that regions have huge variations of need and demand, and, all have a much higher population with hearing loss, not deafness, also regional governments approach health and support differently. Demand can be non-extant for BSL in many areas of Wales."
Bron: "But laws have to include don't they?"
Mervyn: "Inclusion relies on demand, nobody is going to subsidise support hardly ever used. Use it or lose it applies. Charity and systems have to show they are inclusive, hence the global remit but it is in title only. The BDA doesn't have to include and can claim culture and language rights as an exemption, providing their area with an exception to that inclusive rule. I see this as a deliberate specialisation, that suggests they need more 'help' or a higher priority, than others with hearing loss. It establishes a tiered support set up with deaf have, and have-nots, who can be left unsupported because they use a different means to communicate. I respect these deaf have effective campaigning people, but I question their inclusive bottom line. The RNID mainstay is offering professional support at cost, to establishment areas, and charities provide care on the cheap acknowledging the state no longer wants involvement. We cannot control our own support needs, so cannot establish demand for communication preferences that suit our need, there is great inequality."
Bron: "How can such demand be established?"
Mervyn: "With great difficulty, I admit, Charitable areas cannot 'sell' hearing loss to the public. 'Noise is life', as a politician once stated, and our youth have always endorsed it too. Awareness is simply getting a hearing aid or a cochlear implant. Hearing loss groups where they exist have no campaigning core, they, and campaigners too, such as exist, are isolated, access is not there confidence is zero, and grouping doesn't take place. Many fear being attacked as discriminating against BSL users, and online BSL areas heavily censor or block pleas for HoH support. Using trans, shifts the focus away from that."
Continued......
Hard pressed researchers have hit a brick wall as regards to search options online via AI, those with deafness and hearing loss get told why...
