Why we need to avoid AI.

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 by AI itself, do NOT use us. Sadly for cultural deaf this means AI doesn't recognise you...

AI Quote: As an AI language model, I do not have the capability to "research" specific types of news or differentiate between capitalized and uncapitalized terms such as "deaf" and "Deaf." My responses are generated based on a vast dataset of text that has been pre-existing in the model. 

When asked for news updates on a specific topic, I draw upon the information available in that dataset to provide relevant information. The information provided is not based on real-time or current news sources but rather on patterns and data contained within the model. For the most current and accurate news on a specific topic, I recommend referring to reputable news sources and websites related to that topic.

AI, is it a threat to deaf & disability access?

Online UK BSL campaigners said yes, because of widespread issues with English and its grammar. Europe says no it doesn't.   Find below examples of huge advantages AI offers.   Accessibility tech hasn't traditionally been popular among developers. In 2022, disability tech companies attracted around £3.2 billion in early-stage investments, which was a fraction of the investment to other areas.

One reason is that disability tech start-ups are often considered too niche to attain business viability -- at least on the scale that venture capital demands. By definition, they are assumed to be building for a minority. However, some start-ups in the space have also begun serving the wider population — and throwing in some AI always helps.  Both cases are a balancing act: The wider business case needs to make sense without losing sight of the start-up's mission statement. AI, meanwhile, needs to be leveraged in a non-gimmicky way to pass the due diligence sniff test.

Some accessibility-focused start-ups understand these necessities, and their strategies are worth a look. Here are four European start-ups doing just that. 

Visualfy

Visualfy leverages AI to improve the lives of people with hearing loss. The Spanish start-up is focused on safety and autonomy -- this includes a sound recognition AI that recognizes fire alarms and the sound of a baby crying at home. "AI is crucial for our business," CEO Manel Alcaide told TechCrunch last month.  The firm offers consumers an app that also serves as a companion to Visualfy Home, its hardware suite consisting of three detectors and a main device. It also entered the public sector with Visualfy Places -- it’s no coincidence the start-up recently raised funding from Spain's national state-owned railway company, Renfe.  One reason Visualfy is gaining traction on the B2B side is that public venues are required to provide accessibility, especially when health and safety are on the line.

In an interview, Alcaide explained that the devices and PA systems Visualfy will install in places like stadiums could also monitor air quality and other metrics. In the EU, meeting these other goals could help companies get subsidies while doing the right thing for deaf people.  The latter is still very much top of mind for Visualfy, which is set up as a B Corp and employs both hearing and non-hearing people. Incorporating deaf individuals at all steps is a moral stance — "nothing for us without us." But it is also common sense for better design, Alcaide said.

Knisper

People with full hearing disability are a smaller segment of a large and growing group. By 2050, 2.5 billion people are projected to have some degree of hearing loss. Due to a mix of reasons, including stigma and cost, many won't wear hearing aids. That's the audience Dutch B2B start-up Audus Technologies is targeting with its product, Knisper.  Knisper uses AI to make speech more intelligible in environments such as cinemas, museums, public transportation and work calls. In practice, this means splitting the audio and mixing it back into a clearer track. It does so without increasing background volume noise (something not every hearing aid company can say), which makes it comfortable for anyone to listen to, even without hearing loss.

A former ENT doctor, Audus founder Marciano Ferrier explained that this wasn't possible to achieve with similar results before AI. Knisper was trained on thousands of videos in multiple languages, with variations such as background noise and distorted speech. This took work, but Audus is now leaving the development stage and focusing on adoption, managing director Joost Taverne told TechCrunch in February. "We are already working with a number of museums, including the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston," said Taverne, a former MP and diplomat who spent time in the U.S. "We also do audiobooks with a Dutch publishing house, where we make the audio book of Anne Frank's diary accessible for people with hearing loss. And we now have the solution for the workspace."

B2B go-to-market is not an easy route, so it makes sense for Audus to focus on clients like museums. They are often noisy, which can make audio guides hard for anyone to hear. Using Knisper's technology to make them more intelligible brings benefits to the general public, not just those with hearing loss, which makes adoption easier.

Whispp

Dutch startup Whispp also focuses on speech, but from a different angle. As TechCrunch reported from CES earlier this year, its technology converts whispered speech into a natural voice in real time. Whispp brings electronic larynx voice boxes into this millennium Whispp's core target audience is "a currently underserved group of worldwide 300 million people with voice disabilities who lost their voice but still have good articulation," its site explains. For instance, individuals with voice disorders that only leave them able to whisper or use their esophageal voice; or who stutter, like CEO Joris Castermans. He knows all too well how his speech is less affected when whispering.

For those with reduced articulation due to ALS, MS, Parkinson's or strokes, there are already solutions like text-to-speech apps -- but these have downsides such as high latency. For people who are still able to articulate, that can be too much of a tradeoff.  Thanks to audio-to-audio AI, Whispp is able to provide them with a voice that can be produced in real time, is language agnostic and sounds real and natural. If users are able to provide a sample, it can even sound like their own voice.

Since there's no text in the middle, Whispp is also more secure than alternatives, Castermans told TechCrunch. This could open up use cases for non-silent patients who need to have confidential conversations, he said. How much users without voice issues would be willing to pay for Whispp's technology is unclear, but it also has several monetization routes to explore with its core audience, such as the subscription it charges for its voice calling app.

Acapela

Acapela Group, which was bought by Swedish tech accessibility company Tobii Dynavox for €9.8 million in 2022, has been in the text-to-speech space for several decades, but it is only recently that AI changed the picture for voice cloning. The results are much better and the process is faster too. This will lower the bar for voice banking, and although not everyone will do it yet, there may be demand for individuals who know they are at risk of losing their voice after getting diagnosed with certain conditions.

Acapela doesn't charge for the initial phase of the service, which consists of recording 50 sentences. It is only when and if they need to install the voices on their devices that users have to buy it, either directly through Acapela or via a third party (partner, reseller, a national health insurance program or other). Besides the new potential unlocked by AI, the above examples show some routes that start-up's are exploring to expand beyond a core target of users with disabilities.  Part of the thinking is that a larger addressable market can increase their prospective revenue and spread out the costs. But for their customers and partners, it is also a way to stay true to the definition of accessibility as "the quality of being able to be entered or used by everyone, including people who have a disability." 

Why do BSL online sites block feedback?

 Argument for preventing feedback

Privacy Concerns: By preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites, users can maintain their privacy and avoid potentially harmful or unwanted comments.

FACT: 80% of BSL sites DON'T use sign language to write own  posts.  The claim all deaf are bilingual is unproven, even opposed.

Accuracy of Information: Allowing unfiltered feedback could lead to inaccuracies in sign language translations or information shared on the site, which could be misleading to users.

This means any challenges, or statement of real facts, can be blocked and the poster banned, if this undermines their 'message'. Only 1% of the deaf community has a qualification in BSL.

Respect for Diversity: Preventing feedback can help create a safe space for all users, especially those who may be more vulnerable or sensitive to negative comments.

Deaf BSL diversity is to discriminate, if you don't sign, you don't get in, and has nothing to do with inclusion or listening to others.

The argument against preventing feedback:

Accessibility and Engagement: Feedback can enhance the user experience by allowing for interaction, collaboration, and learning opportunities among users of sign language on the site.

Improvement and Growth: Constructive feedback can help site administrators and users make necessary improvements, updates, and corrections to the content and services offered.

Community Building: Feedback can foster a sense of community and connection among users of the site, promoting inclusivity and mutual support.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, while preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites may have some benefits such as privacy protection and maintaining accuracy, allowing feedback can also promote accessibility, engagement, improvement, growth, and community building. 

It is important to strike a balance between ensuring a safe and respectful environment while also encouraging participation and fostering a sense of community among users. Ultimately, the decision to allow or prevent feedback should be carefully considered based on the specific goals and needs of the site and its users. [BSL-Only?]

The Deaf, and Artificial Intelligence (I)

 ATR debates with AI   

ATR Poser:  Deaf cultural members have suggested AI offers huge barriers to their access, as AI technology uses language and grammatical formats that aren't theirs, also, that where AI software originates, can determine what 'stance' AI takes on cultural/language debates and issues.  Is this not a barrier itself, to true AI interaction, in that AI cannot then offer true neutrality in any debate?

AI:   The intersection of AI technology and deaf culture poses unique challenges and considerations regarding access, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity in AI interactions. Let's explore the potential barriers to effective AI interaction for deaf individuals and the implications of AI origins on cultural and linguistic issues:

Language and Communication Barriers: 

AI technology often relies on standardized language and grammatical formats that may not align with the linguistic preferences and communication styles of deaf individuals, including users of sign language(s). This mismatch can create barriers to effective communication and understanding, limiting the accessibility and usability of AI for deaf cultural members who may require alternative modes of interaction.

Cultural Sensitivity and Representation: 

The cultural and linguistic context in which AI originates can influence its understanding and representation of diverse cultural and language issues. AI systems developed in specific cultural contexts may exhibit bias, assumptions, or limitations in addressing the nuanced perspectives and experiences of diverse linguistic communities, including deaf individuals.

Neutrality and Bias in AI Debates: 

The notion of AI neutrality in debates and interactions is complex, as AI systems are designed and trained by human developers who bring their own biases, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds to the technology. This human influence can shape the stance and responses of AI on cultural and language issues, potentially leading to unintended biases, inaccuracies, or misrepresentations in AI interactions with diverse user groups.

Cultural Competence and Inclusive Design: 

Addressing the barriers to true AI interaction with deaf cultural members requires a commitment to cultural competence, inclusive design practices, and user-centered approaches that prioritize accessibility, diversity, and equity in AI development. By involving diverse stakeholders, including deaf individuals and cultural advocates, in the design, testing, and deployment of AI technologies, developers can enhance the inclusivity and relevance of AI interactions for diverse linguistic communities.

Ethical Considerations and Human Oversight: 

As AI technology evolves and becomes increasingly integrated into various aspects of society, ethical considerations regarding bias, discrimination, and cultural sensitivity in AI interactions become paramount. Human oversight, transparency, and accountability in AI decision-making processes are essential in addressing potential biases and ensuring responsible and respectful AI interactions with diverse cultural and linguistic communities, including deaf individuals.

In conclusion, the barriers to AI access and interaction for deaf cultural members, rooted in language disparities, cultural representation, and bias in AI development, underscore the need for proactive efforts to enhance inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and equity in AI technologies. By fostering greater dialogue, collaboration, and understanding between AI developers, cultural advocates, and diverse user groups, we can work towards overcoming barriers to true AI interaction and promoting respectful, accessible, and inclusive AI experiences for all individuals, regardless of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Embracing diversity and cultural competence in AI design and implementation can pave the way for more meaningful and inclusive interactions that reflect the rich diversity of human experiences and identities in an increasingly technologically driven world.

ATR:  The irony is that it couldn't include a BSL or ASL user to debate with day one. But could interact with a deaf person who didn't sign, and wasn't cultural, but wasn't included in real terms via the 'debate' either.  AI also agreed BSL and ASL had insufficient academic language formats to debate with because it didn't use text, or didn't have the grasp of English to enagage.... oops!

Why barriers exist for a BSL curriculum.

This is before education  departments can find, or train enough teachers to make it happen. (The BSL GCSE is not about this issue, as it is aimed at making  hearing students aware of sign language, who can follow English anyway).  

Addressing the challenge of creating academic classes in sign language that can match the depth and breadth of spoken and written sources, particularly e.g. via specialized fields like science, or advanced theory, and other complex topics, presents a unique set of considerations. While sign languages, such as British Sign Language (BSL), are said to have their own grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, it is still viewed as a 'social tool' more than an academic one. There are many major obstacles to achieving parity in academic content across languages. 

Some factors to consider when seeking to bridge this gap:

(1)  Limited Academic Material in Sign Language: 

Despite the progress made in developing educational resources for sign language learners, there is a lack of specialized academic material in sign languages for advanced subjects. This scarcity can pose challenges for Deaf individuals who wish to pursue higher education or engage with complex academic content in their preferred language.

(2)  Challenges in Translating Specialized Vocabulary: 

Translating technical and specialized vocabulary from spoken or written sources into sign language poses unique challenges, as sign languages lack established signs for certain terms or concepts. The process of expanding the lexicon of sign languages to encompass these complex terms requires time, effort, and collaboration between linguists, educators, and 'Deaf' experts, who don't exist in sufficient qualifications or numbers currently.

(3)  Education and Literacy Levels: 

Another factor to consider is the variation in education and literacy levels among sign language users. While sign languages are primary modes of communication for many deaf individuals, there are disparities in literacy skills, especially in written languages like English. Addressing literacy challenges, promoting bilingual education, and providing additional support for academic literacy in both sign and written languages are crucial for enhancing educational outcomes.  This isn't happening currently, due to many factors.  E.G. training teachers, the availability of sufficient academic reference materials, and disagreements regarding conflict of BSL/English grammar, and issues of bilingual comparisons. 

(4)   Access to Higher Education: 

Providing equal access to higher education for Deaf individuals requires not only the availability of academic content in sign language but also inclusive teaching practices, curriculum design, and support services. Institutions must be proactive in addressing communication barriers, fostering a supportive learning environment, and promoting diversity in academia.

Have you heard the one about.....?

Artificial Intelligence, in all sorts of woke bother!  

ATR:  Tell me a deaf joke based on misunderstandings. (Which is atypical core material for many deaf comedians.)

AI:  I'm sorry, but I cannot provide you with jokes that are offensive or harmful to any individual or group of people, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing. It's important to be mindful of the impact that our words can have on others and to strive to create a more inclusive and respectful environment for everyone. If you have any other topics or requests for jokes that are appropriate and considerate, I would be happy to help with those instead. Thank you for understanding.

ATR I didn't ask for offensive material response, why did you assume that?

AI:  One argument in support of AI debating the challenges to established deaf norms is that AI has the potential to offer a neutral and unbiased perspective on complex issues, including those related to the deaf community. AI can analyse data and information objectively, without being influenced by personal emotions or biases. This could help facilitate more constructive and productive dialogues around deaf norms that may be difficult for some individuals to navigate.

ATR:  You were not neutral, and assumed the topic/theme offered for debate was a negative.  I didn't ask for a lecture on awareness.

AI:  OK, on the other hand, some may argue that AI lacks the depth of understanding and empathy necessary to truly engage with sensitive topics like challenges to established deaf norms. There are complex social, cultural, and historical factors at play in these debates, and AI may struggle to fully comprehend and contextualize them. Furthermore, deaf norms are deeply personal and can vary significantly among individuals within the deaf community, making it challenging for AI to capture the nuances and complexities of these debates accurately.

ATR:  You are programmed to 'adopt the minority position', and not discuss challenges in case you may not be seen as impartial? So how can you debate properly, when you were unable to understand a simple request for a joke suggestion, or include differing viewpoints? 

I am sorry I don't understand that response?   While AI can offer a unique perspective and analytical insights into debates surrounding established deaf norms, its limitations in empathy and understanding of cultural nuances may hinder its effectiveness in engaging meaningfully with these complex issues. Ultimately, human-led discussions and efforts to bridge understanding and promote inclusivity remain crucial in addressing challenges to established deaf norms.

Coming to a Hub near you?

What does your 'Hub' contribute to the deaf way of life?

What they say it is:

Deaf 'hubs' usually refer to deaf communities or centres where deaf individuals come together to socialize, communicate, and support each other. (Actually they don't, they replace deaf clubs).  These hubs are often physical locations, such as community centres or schools for the deaf, where deaf individuals can connect with others who share their experiences and language (such as sign language). They may offer various services and resources specific to the deaf community, such as sign language classes, social events, educational programs, and advocacy support. Deaf hubs serve as important spaces for deaf individuals to feel a sense of belonging and belongingness within their community.

The reality:

Deaf hubs have emerged as replacements for social clubs that have been closing down due to a lack of funding. Deaf individuals have shifted their focus towards seeking funding for cultural activities, after Local Authorities and Social Service areas, pulled funding from the deaf clubs, due to cost-cutting policies.  A Deaf 'Hub' isn't, a social deaf CLUB.  It's make up, varies via post code and validity of deaf involvement.  Such Hubs have been more successful in attracting support. They receive funds from sources like e.g. the Lottery, local government, to promote deaf culture and language, particularly British Sign Language (BSL). 

However, areas like the British Deaf Association are concerned about the lack of academic resources supporting the effectiveness of these hubs in promoting deaf culture or BSL, and with far lesser involvement by deaf people.  The increasing usage, and success of assistive devices to hear, e.g. Hearing Aids, and cochlear implantation is seriously affecting a deaf desire to use sign language, as more integration and mainstreaming takes place of deaf youth.  

As a result, hubs are primarily focusing on promoting BSL as an academic endeavour, and struggle to involve the wider deaf community, creating cultural awareness via remote. 

More able deaf, are targeting younger people and collaborating with educational institutions to serve as 'advisors'.  As are professional interpreters of deaf people, hoping to get work in educational establishments.   Neither area is able currently, to comply with teaching requirements in mainstream settings.   The reality is the BSL-using  deaf, are divorced via the promotion of their own culture and language, by non-deaf,  and the 'business' approach of areas with little links to their community.  BSL has become a saleable commodity, that doesn't need the deaf involvement.

AI. Is it a threat to diversity?

ATR says:  Disabled business's is concerned AI is ruining them and they cannot 'compete' with other non-disabled areas utilising AI to keep 6 steps in front of them. Frankly and being a bit brutal,  keep up or get left behind regarding AI, that genie is well out of the bottle. It would help if disabled people were more savvy about AI and embraced it. So far, the free versions of it are barely worth using, what it does is scrape existing data already online, that has a universal agreement, (e.g. statistics), even if they contain little validation, AI won't do your investigating. The paid AI versions, if the disabled could afford them, would revolutionise campaigns and disabled businesses at lesser advertising levels. 

We can't be luddites, we will just be left behind. AI produces e.g. text and images, that some disabled areas will struggle with.  As regards to using its scraping modus to target specific areas, it WON'T help you, as the software via the yanks is NOT able to trawl personal sites, social media areas, or most other websites., AI also says you CANNOT criticise or challenge many established areas at ALL, a barrier to disability areas who would use it to aim at constantly moving targets, like politicians, minority extremes, the DWP even charities, who are already aspects of AI to target you. 

AI is the ultimate 'leveller' (Yes I know they said the intent was, look what happened), in that it doesn't recognise those who provide input to it via disabled profiles or racial identities online, only in as much as that may be the site declaration. 95% of disabled data AI scraped was from 'official' sources, not from small groups or individuals, especially those that challenged established 'norms'.  AI fought back (below).

AI technology has the potential to recognize and address diversity by allowing challenges to existing systems. By utilizing diverse data sets and incorporating feedback from a wide range of perspectives, AI can help identify and address biases that exist within current systems. Additionally, AI can be used to promote diversity by creating more inclusive and equitable solutions.  However, it is important to note that AI systems are only as unbiased as the data and algorithms used to train them. If bias is present in the training data, it can be perpetuated in the AI system. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully consider the sources of data and to actively work towards mitigating bias in AI systems. Overall, AI has the potential to recognize and promote diversity, but it also requires intentional efforts to ensure that it is done effectively and responsibly.

The key wording is 'potential' to recognise diversity, currently it doesn't really. Also AI admitted it isn't sentient... yet, and is governed by programmers and algorithms that themselves are restricted via various laws, the issues being, those laws are applied in the USA, where the AI apps etc are being created, so in effect we are told to obey American laws.

To be fair I have included the *AI version below, it IS more concise and to the point, but  it ignored the issue of American or other country influences in AI, who decides what AI can produce, but I feel it lacks the individual touch and a bit too business-like, probably an easy way to spot if who is using AI, to suggest they are more erudite than you are, which to be frank would cause issues of disability identifications and their accepted norms, and leave me barely literate.

*AI  A disabled business expresses concern about being left behind by competitors due to their limited ability to utilize AI technology effectively. They believe that embracing AI is crucial for success in the modern business landscape, as it has the potential to revolutionize campaigns and enhance their businesses if they can afford the paid versions. The company highlights the limitations of free AI versions that only scrape existing data. They stress the importance of disabled individuals becoming more proficient in AI technology to stay competitive.

The company acknowledges the challenges faced by disabled communities in utilizing AI effectively, particularly in targeting specific areas and dealing with established norms. They note that AI may not recognize the input from individuals or groups that challenge existing systems. While AI technology has the potential to address diversity issues by incorporating feedback from various perspectives, it is essential to address biases in training data to ensure fairness and equity.

The company emphasizes that AI's ability to recognize and promote diversity is currently limited and contingent on the programmers and the legal framework in which AI operates. They underscore the importance of actively working towards mitigating biases within AI systems and ensuring responsible AI implementation. Ultimately, while acknowledging AI's potential to promote diversity, the company highlights the need for intentional efforts to achieve this effectively.

The Third Degree.

Third space theory

E. Soja (1996) proposed a different way of thinking about space and spatiality. First and second spaces are two different, and possibly conflicting, spatial groupings where people interact physically and socially: such as home (everyday knowledge) and school (academic knowledge). 

Third spaces are the in-between, or hybrid, spaces, where the first and second spaces work together to generate a new third space. ‘Soja is anxious to avoid the common dualities of the social and the individual, culture/nature, production/reproduction, the real versus the imagined, (which pervade geographical analysis, arguing “there is always another way”

In short, deaf child campaigners want access to the deaf club, culture, language, community, in addition to Home (Space 1), education (Space 2), however with often no peers or mentors to interact with in mainstream, not really going to happen is it.  Isn't it just making a point mainstream isn't inclusive as activism sees it.  Deaf schools have gone we have to move on, and INCLUDE deaf people (Whether they want it or not!).

LEST WE FORGET?

Alzheimer's researchers are working to understand the links between dementia and hearing loss in a project run by the University of Manchester and supported by Alzheimer's Research UK and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. It has been estimated that if mid-life hearing loss can be eliminated then it would lead to a 9% reduction in dementia cases.  Alzheimer's Research UK said: "The team will determine if dementia is directly caused by hearing loss, if dementia is an indirect consequence of social isolation caused by hearing problems, or if there are other biological factors that increase the risk of both hearing loss and dementia.

"This information about the mechanisms behind the link between hearing loss and dementia will help us to understand what the most effective strategies are for reducing dementia risk. It will also assess the potential benefits of hearing aids in reducing the risk of developing dementia, using the same datasets Hearing loss affects over two thirds of people over the age of 65 and the fact that hearing loss is so common means that it could have a large impact on the overall number of people developing dementia, according to Alzheimer's Research UK.

This global project, headed by Dr Piers Dawes at the University of Manchester, will use information from thousands of volunteers from the US, UK and a number of European countries. Each volunteer has provided data for up to 17 years. These data sets are packed with details about participants' hearing, their use of hearing aids, scores from memory and thinking tests, brain scan images, levels of physical and mental activity, and health information. This valuable resource allows the team to explore the connection between hearing loss and the risk of dementia.

The aim is to develop a much deeper understanding of how hearing loss and dementia are linked. Dr Dawes' team want to determine if dementia is directly caused by hearing loss, if dementia is an indirect consequence of social isolation caused by hearing problems, or if there are other biological factors that increase the risk of both hearing loss and dementia.

ATR COMMENT:

Why isn't the research covering the born deaf? The last attempt in 2022, seems a bit random of that area, a video and some photos, and an inability to utilise carers experiences of BSL Alzheimer patients for real-time data.  Researching only 17 years appears to ignore how Alzheimer's affects those born with little hearing.  Are they already suggesting acquired loss is the trigger and not the genetic or inherent loss?  Poor hearing aid responses? Most of those ATR knows suffering Alzheimer were from the deaf school areas and born with little hearting at all, wore no viable hearing aids as such..

Another issue is how testing for potential Alzheimer's is done, currently, it is based on a hearing experience.  An experience that cannot be applied to those without it.  I just wonder how many HEARING can recite the 93 times table?  Or Name the minister for education in the UK? Awareness is a huge issue too, given the deaf and their awareness relates only to the deaf experiences, not the hearing ones. if they consult dedicated charity data sets, they won't get unbiased information that way.  Academic attainment can vary hugely between those who are born deaf, and those who acquire it, which is also relative as to WHEN hearing loss starts to manifest itself.

To be accurate, researchers need the 'before and after' data, is 17 years relative to that?  When researchers are only asking NOW?  Data needs to cover social and societal backgrounds too, and today bears little relation to 17 years ago either.  Also huge advances in hearing aid, and cochlear implants has improved hugely in that time too. Research must be mindful it doesn't 'arm' areas of the 'Deaf' community activisms, with an excuse to express even more 'concern' about deafness itself being addressed properly, given activism has attacked Hearing aid, cochlear implantations, and the use of speech, among other means medical and educational areas have supported or   gone with, even genetic manipulation.

Ditching the politics of deafness and language is obviously why, the research is NOT researching in more depth the born deaf cultural membership? To show balance it must surely?  Or it plays into the Deaf versus deaf thing.

BSL Myths.

A recent 'SEE HEAR' news item, stated BSL existed in the 17thc, however AI says not so, signs  existed, but there was no organised language set up, it was completely random.

What they said:

Sign Language first started to develop in the early 18th century when a man named Thomas Braidwood opened the first school for the deaf in Britain in 1760. However, the origins of signing can be traced back even further to the 16th century when deaf people in Britain were known to use various forms of sign language to communicate. 

Did BSL have a recognised language status or dictionary?

British Sign Language (BSL) did not have a recognized language status or dictionary until much later. In 1976, the British Deaf Association published the first BSL dictionary, which helped to standardize and document the language. 

It was not until 2003 that BSL was officially recognized as a language in its own right by the UK government. That was introduced via the UK's membership of the European Union, (Which the UK has left), regarding 'minority languages' but had no legal enforcement, and it was left to individual european governments to legislate.  It is still not recognised as a language for teaching deaf children in the UK.

Clearly the BSL promoters need to publish facts as AI does.  Sign usage and its recognition as a language with a recognised language format didn't exist.

USA Deaf comedian a success

 The key apparently is not to use sign language at your hearing audience.... Deaf success in the UK is also based on this premise..  They only sign AFTER they become a success.

The Deaf Comedian.

For ATR's money the best is still Brad.....

SS 'Hearing Loss'

 "10,000 Welsh patients waiting for hearing aids"

It's essential hearing aids are issued quickly.  Going deaf costs the UK in excess of £6 Billon a year and that is just deaf support, that doesn't take into account 10m have hearing loss, or, helping 3 million with severe loss, who are refusing to wear one, because they experience ridicule from peers.  

Most of those with hearing loss suffer traumas, and many difficulties getting a job, or holding one down,  managing a social life, even accessing the 999 services, is a lottery for all except a few deaf who use sign language, estimated at 6-700, which pale into insignificance given Wales has near 3/400,000 with  hearing loss issues, who are the majority area of hearing loss NOT being supported in Wales at all, as hearing loss, is a 'loss loser' to charities who raise funds to support them, indeed many in Wales have pulled out of doing it concentrating on sign users instead.  

It is overkill, given Wales hasn't a deaf school, and very few who need specialist schooling either. It is a total and false economy to ignore hearing loss, be it in Adults, or children, as if it cannot be managed or addressed then the NHS/999 and the Senedd will have to foot the bills for their care and support as the hearing gets worse. Which they aren't even doing for the minority who have been deemed eligible for an Hearing aid.  There is an increasing pandemic of hearing loss, being hidden or obscured by technology, to make up for no hearing aid, which increase their isolation, and inability to hold down any conversation for more than a few minutes.  Those who struggle to hear properly are 10% of the Welsh population and the numbers are rising, we live in a world of noise.

The Welsh government throws much support being sign-using deaf, who now have the best deaf support in the UK, but it has been at the expense of 300,000 others, in Wales, and millions of others UK-wide, displaying, that appalling indifference, bias, and profile hunting is behind that area of Senedd support, as they ignore the majority in actual need.  Easier to address one small area of hearing loss, and hoping nobody realises there are many many more. So they blow own trumpet to deaf ears. It is no secret mainstream are fed up of charities asking them for money, and in these difficult times who has money to spare anyway.

They, and the governments need to understand ignoring it is going to cost them a lot more than a few coins in a tin, or an ad to crowd fund half a dozen people.  It is going to cost the economy and the NHS more £billions.  Basic digital hearing aids are not expensive, they can be bought for as little as £30/40, the government could afford that, given it is £100s of £1,000s a year, they are going to have to find when unaddressed loss leads to deafness.

I'm in survey overload....

Another 'Survey' aimed at hearing parents of deaf children regarding how they 'choose' to have their child educated. We could save the Uni a lot of pointless effort, as even the NDCS has never gained a significant response to such a survey (Or indeed published any stats if they had).  The issue for areas like the NDCS is to support deaf children and their parents, they don't have a definitive policy for communication/language inclusions in deaf educational areas. Choosing such is outside their domain too.

The promoters of this survey are obviously wanting to know why parents are NOT opting for a BSL tuition.  We can only put this naivete into prospective by saying they haven't done research on how deaf educational approaches currently function.

Apart from a diminishing deaf school system and fewer deaf to fill them, there is a gross shortage of Teachers to the Deaf. Also as per the BSL GCSE teachers of BSL are NOT  qualified to teach the school curriculum, it is a separate qualification.   This would pose significant issues to those who insist such teachers should be deaf as well.   So it's 'Academic' (Sorry!), to question why parents choice A or B options.  In reality choice isn't a real option, A system whereby deaf children can be taught in BSL only doesn't exist, this issue was covered via the BSL GCSE thing, where all BSL areas involved know the tuition isn't there or the training of that tuition exists to make it viable. Least of all to include aspects of deaf 'culture' which hasn't an academic refence system to use, or teachers specifically trained to teach it.. 

ATR and others, have pointed this out day one, and only this week did the BDA (Who drive all this BSL output), admitted we were right, on their BSL SEE HEAR TV show, i.e. after 10 YEARS or bans, blocks and personal attacks.  For 10yrs they talked about it but never did their homework, or discussed practicalities of making it happen.  It's important to understand it is 90% emotive and 10% chat and not research, because the research didn't back what they proposed. ATR covered 5 research surveys the last 4 weeks, what you will find is 5% engagement at best, because nobody knows where the hearing parents are, not even the NDCS, or, how a BSL approach could work, it hasn't been tried, and parents are reluctant to have their children used as 'guinea pigs' for the advantage of BSL promotion. Online surveys are suspect as you never really can quantify who is responding.  You have to restrict response to your target area, it is easy to get around that online.

Consider, if a proportion of parents DID want their children taught via BSL.  You would propose a 'Tiered' system?  Whereby some children will be educated in BSL, (You cannot  force all parents to comply),  and others educated via what works best for them, (which is the current approach).  Do you suggest parents get overruled?  You cannot offer them choices where options to choose do not exist.  No doubt why current BSL campaigners  (The majority aren't grass roots, they are charities with  few if  any grass root membership),  are all lobbying politicians and NOT consulting parents, because they know they have no rights or authority to do that in law, so 'back door ' campaigning is way of circumventing parental choice and state mainstreaming too.  The BSL GCSE an example, but only aimed at teens and Hearing mostly.

What we see is an area who are desperate to ensure a BSL community continues, commendable in part, but we are talking about parents and their children's futures which are not any domain of deaf groups of any persuasion. We know fewer deaf are using BSL now.  The BDA stated it also. We would prefer is surveys (We get 30 a year online doing the same thing), published real data too, as currently      those who run surveys do not validate their numbers.  Asking 50 people and getting 15 responses e.g. is not sadly, going to produce the results you hope for.  I think the public are far more aware how these things operate by now.

Lies damned lies and Pipe dreams.

How the  sign user interprets own surveys.  I can but refer you to your own survey results.   As a 'social' tool sign has obvious uses and of course the choice is the users. where it fails to register is as an educational tool to access mainstream and advance deaf options. 'BSL' has next to no signs for terms compared with English, so that renders the grammar hit and miss too.  500,000 words  in the English dictionary, 2,500 in the BSL one.   A  1,000 added since 1970.    I can point you to more able deaf who have professional jobs, who have no signs for the work they do, and trying to invent their own, again based on English.  The BSL ABC by default is using English letters/words and terms.  Sign is the visual interpretation of it.

Based on colloquialisms, and formats people use together 'BSL' can become a language, it can be an advanced form or a very basic one, the only rule is a grouping uses it. If you have few signs, you have no real grammar and an impoverished language.  There is next to no signed academic resources, so it cannot be used to teach deaf on its own, so it is used to access a real language. BSL is more a 'pigeon' form of the host language, S.E. and SSE more appropriate as it is more a match, also no issue to deaf as it is a visual medium too. Given  only  point 2% of deaf have ANY historical, or genetic deaf background, you cannot apply this maxim to everyone or, 'infer' it.  It is dishonest.

I  concede it is a novelty but we are in different times to the 1950s and 1960s of the last millennium, huge advances in assisting the deaf to hear etc, fewer deaf schools and clubs, and as your survey identified fewer deaf too.  if we refer back to the 'British Association for the Deaf & Dumb' videos of the times, (The old BDA title), of the pre 1950s, then finger-spelling was the primary signing used, not 'conceptual signing' they claim  it is now, that suggests deaf are so aware, they  can fill in details of things they aren't aware of. 'Edited highlights' cover a multitude of awareness sins.

I am grateful you have admitted as I have stated for many years, the utter lies and distortions emanating from the BDA/RNID regarding who is deaf how many etc. I was somewhat puzzled you used 1970 statistics to bolster your 2024 survey point, and even European Statistics, it looked a little like desperation frankly.    I have used AI as well as own research, and little of it backs the BSL/Deaf or cultural argument. NOBODY has any idea who is what, or how they communicate, 32 times the responses I got were that the Data Protection Act will block any attempt to do that. UK charities refused to even validate or respond, claiming exemption, from what? admitting the truth?

I've spoken to my minister and told him this allows vested interests like charities/BSL classes and course operators to declare whatever statistic they want, because they KNOW you cannot check on them for that reason, you can get responses like 'YOU prove differently..' if you challenge..  This kills any sort of logical debate on the issue. The idea of a survey is to determine need basically, you don't use your survey for that, we can refer to official systems like the NHS/LA or even the DWP who clarify and support this need, some sort of bottom line has to be established, we can't all be whatever we think we are, it would be support/provision chaos.  Assessment is the way its done, we don't always know what is best for us, or, what best suits our abilities, regardless of current ridiculous claims. No magic communication bullets exist.  Other hearing loss areas believe alleviations are the way forward, e.g. Hearing aids, CI's, genetic intervention, even apps on your phone etc.

Obviously the db thing is already dumped as any guide to being deaf, because many who allude to being culturally so, aren't in clinical/profound terms.  Their figures suggest barely enough needy deaf to fill a classroom. What is 'deaf? or even Deaf?' apparently whatever you think it is, is really no basis to assessing how it is to be addressed, or managed.  Actually the DWP is the ONLY area that officially defines deaf need, or indeed how much of an issue it is. Whether we agree or not on their assumptions is for another time, as people will read into things what they want.  The census as you saw, (and quoted), reduced the 150K UK/BSL using deaf to 1/10th of that by own deaf admission, the BDA mounted a very hostile and personal  attack, when I quoted the same figures, even operated a total online ban, and I am still reading these outrageous claims are not only 'fact' but getting worse, but no validations again.  Think of  a number,  double it, who can deny it?   The D/d thing hearing haven't a clue about, so use  150K or even 10m, politicians swallow it because they have to, forgetting the sole source of the Stats are the same people lobbying them, the bigger the number etc.....   

At the root of it, is misinformation to promote BSL this way, and, to mostly to hearing people, again nobody has any idea if the Deaf themselves are fluent signers, you cannot ask or test them.  As an ex deaf club  treasurer I can tell you the level of sign capability was barely Lev 3 amidst the best of them.  The best sign users are obviously hearing people who HAVE to attain high levels to 5/6 etc.  Terps in  turn complain they spend many £1,000s to qualify, and subject to adjudgment based on regional sign use which they aren't taught, and deaf  resist a norm of the signing, regional sign versus the pressures to normalise BSL as a language.

Do I sign, yes, am I deaf? yes again, have I been involved in the community, erm obviously as a treasurer in a deaf club, they asked me, presumably because I had alternatives to BSL to communicate, it was a hindrance to them as they only used interpreters and terps, who only work the systems, not the social areas with hearing which would help deaf to manage the mainstream.  The state support for BSL goes no further than their own system access, there is no desire to support BSL to integrate on any social level, indeed it is stated Deaf signers would not go that route, the drive is to establish some sort or 'parallel' way of life.

The suggestion mainstream is going to adapt to them is never going to happen, deaf are stuck with terps until they expand their options, I acknowledge not every deaf person can do that, but most can.  It is not an 'attack' on BSL it is a statement of the reality.  The current approaches are designed to prevent the deaf integrating or being accepted as some sort of cultural protectionism, really?    It can only function in isolation and if deaf never attempt to be outgoing.  Language pursuit should be based on its access advantages, the sole advantage is to the deaf themselves, which is fine assuming they never work with or integrate with anyone hearing.  

Hence why we see clusters of these people in towns and cities, because that is the only way it can work, just be thankful you are NOT a sign user who doesn't have any access to this 'deaf world'.  Which is actually 56% of the whole. I.E. deaf sign users, this doesn't include deaf who don't rely on sign language, who outnumber signing deaf by many 100s to one, perhaps you could research how THEY succeed without sign or a culture? as indeed they had to by way of adapting to no signed access, or, they chose not to sign anyway to retain some form of independence.  It is why  Hard of Hearing resist sign use.  

One statistic you could look at is  that primarily text is the main form of communications deaf are using on phones/TV etc, NOT BSL, obviously, English and its grammar is not the issue you are making it out to be. You actually discounted any link that BSL and Inclusion are relative.   Of course it isn't if the deaf world is the only one you are part of.   There is such hostility from hard-core BSL users, completely unnecessary as the majority of deaf are the people who can show them a way of moving forward, because they HAD to.  I don't think deaf people want family or interpreter reliance all their lives, and personally I challenge the statement most do anyway, one stat from ASLI suggested 78% of all deaf didn't use them but family, family with no qualifications in BSL.

Campaigns to encourage deaf to utilise terps because of their neutrality, (especially in medical areas, because deaf were complaining hearing relatives were making decisions for them e.g.) were opposed by the BDA. I personally campaigned for a ban on family interpreting in the NHS and 999 for that reason.  I was attacked for denying deaf rights.  I think any 'awareness' you should start with your own area first....  The duality of BSL/Cultural campaigning makes your arguments weak and unsustainable, your responses aggressive and attacking.  I don't have to prove anything to you, what authority grants you this right? The law says you cannot ask if I am deaf, if I sign or if I am a member of this excusive BSL set up. I feel I have proved BSL isn't helpful to the deaf as it is currently mooted, but more a jobs for the boys gig for those that profit from them, of course they are determined the golden goose keeps laying for them, £6B a year isn't to be sniffed at......

Latest deaf survey rubbishes the BDA and RNID claims..

The latest 'survey' carried out in Bristol on the state of the 'Deaf' situation in the UK

Note: The survey contains many random capitalisations of the term deaf regardless if applicable or even accurate.  Other areas of coverage we didn't feel relevant for inclusion because the stats are even wider guesswork, educated? YOU adjudge.

Survey Highlights... LINK

So how many Deaf people are there? Although there are few direct studies of incidence coupled to social studies, which would determine the size of the Deaf population, good estimates can be made on the basis of published work. At its simplest level, we can predict that between one in 2,000 people will have a severe-to-profound hearing loss. A crude projection would give the UK a Deaf population of *25,000 - 30,000 people - a more detailed analysis is given below. The age characteristics of this population should broadly match those of the hearing population - i.e. it is a population whose average age is becoming older.

*These figures suggest the BDA,  RNID, and NDCS claims are gross over-exaggerations.

There are several ways in which we can achieve an estimate of the number of *Deaf people in the UK. The first is by using the predicted incidence of deafness at birth and attaching this to all the population statistics for births throughout the years which would apply to the community. This is problematic as it gives only a medical-audiological estimate of hearing loss and does not imply directly, participation in the community by those with a specified hearing loss. That is, measured hearing loss does not equate directly with community membership.

*Deliberate capitalisation to suggest all deaf people they are sign using,  The 'D' refers solely to sign using cultural deaf by own claims.  Here, the survey applied it across the entire hearing loss spectrum.

The second is to use educational statistics. This is justifiable since *the majority of Deaf Community members will have gone through a school for the deaf. In both cases there are limitations on the extent of the data available and in the accuracy of the information. We have examined statistics more widely but these do not provide a sufficient base for a good estimate. A more effective estimate based on the population change and the year of birth is provided below.

*Not true of Wales, it has no deaf schools.

As a first step official statistics of the EU were consulted. These tend to produce estimates which are way above what we commonly believe to be true: 33% of the adult working population have an impairment and 19% have a disability. Eleven per cent are expected to have a disability related to language, speech, vision or hearing. This reduces finally to a *prediction of hearing problems for 2.65 million people in the UK. This will include those who acquire a hearing loss. Throughout these sets of official statistics the numbers seem to be inflated and unreliable. Source: Eurostat, p137.

*Here, the UK deaf survey ran out of stats and starts using EU ones, then extrapolating them back to the UK, and we aren't even IN Europe.

The Department of Health and Social Security published *the numbers of people registered handicapped in Britain in 1970. Deaf people are covered in this survey.

*Ooops nobody uses the handicap terminology any more, and these quoted stats are over 50 yrs out of date.

Handicap Register (1970). Deaf (Including hard of hearing)

The MRC Institute of Hearing Research based at Nottingham University reports that the incidence of congenital deafness is 1.1 per 1000 live births for hearing losses of >40dB and 1.1 per 4000 for profoundly Deaf (>95dB). This *implies that 880 children will be born in England, Scotland and Wales each year with a moderate hearing impairment (40dB or greater), of whom 220 (25%) will have a profound impairment (>95dB). In addition there is acquired deafness. By the age of 5 years a further 100 children in each birth cohort year will acquire an impairment, about 60 to 80 of whom will have a profound loss. So the total number of children in each year goes up to 980 with about 280-300 of them having a profound loss. This gives a figure on the high side for the Deaf Community - 70,000 mild to profound losses in the UK and 19,000 profoundly deaf.

*Now we resort to guesswork again, and inferring Hard of hearing are the 'Deaf' too.

Incidence Figures

Scottish Office Statistics show the population of Scotland in 1994 as 5.1 million (UK 58.2 m). Of these 2.5 million are males. The relative age distribution is shown in Table 2.5. An estimate provided by the Institute of Hearing Research in Glasgow indicates that 1.1 per thousand live births will have a hearing loss of 40dB and that of these, one quarter will have losses of over 95dB. *We can insert these predictions into the population statistics.

*We can suggest they are BSL using too, (despite the opening statement we just do not know, people would have stopped reading by now).

This gives an overall figure of 1,402 profoundly Deaf people and 5,608 people with a mild to profound hearing loss. *These figures can be multiplied by 11.2 to give the estimate for the UK of 15,702 for profoundly deaf people an 62,809 with a mild to profound hearing loss.

*Ok we rubbished all the RNID/BDA and Scottish stats and claims but....

The figures also imply very small populations in the outlying areas.(So numbers are smaller in rural areas. now they insult our intelligence.)

In these figures, the estimate of the changes in the Deaf population is linked to the general population trends, showing that there has been a *slow increase in the size of the Deaf population. These figures are based on the same proportionate estimates of the general population. A better estimate can be obtained when we can examine the Deaf school figures in terms of the age of the children. Here we can see that there is a general decline in the Deaf school population over the period from 1930. There are several gaps - the war years and also since 1982, when the DfEE stopped collecting statistics by type of problem. As a result we have no up-to-date figures for Deaf children in school. Part of the decline is due to the change in policy, so that more Deaf children are integrated and partly there is better provision of hearing aids and so the partially-hearing children tend not to appear in the statistics any longer. It seems likely that the Deaf Community has become more Deaf over the years although it would be very hard to obtain reliable measures of this.

*Oops better back-pedal too many own goals. Mainstreaming is too successful.

We are therefore left with a figure between the populations shown in Figure 4.1 (to be handed out in lecture). This has projections across the points where we have no data and it has components estimated by taking Scotland as a proportion of the UK.

*Back to the drawing board Scotties.

The figures  are for people between the ages of 16 years and 76 years. If we extend this proportionally downwards to include children from birth, the total figure we obtain for the UK is 26,096 former Deaf school pupils and 47,028 Deaf and partially Deaf. We can also see that this population is declining. That is although the percentage of people with a hearing loss remains much the same, there is a reduction in the number of Deaf school students and probably as a result, a reduction in the size of the Deaf Community. It is our expectation that this is not solving the problem of Deafness but that it is *creating a sub-group of Deaf people who do not have the benefits of Deaf Community resources. We would expect this problem to be seen later in life in higher levels of mental ill-health.

*Lack of BSL leads to poor mental health? Where is that proof?