Deaf people and Isolation.

More than a quarter of deaf people say they have been ignored in public, according to a major survey by a leading charity. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People asked more than 8,000 deaf people and people with hearing loss about their experiences and found that many say they still face considerable stigma in their daily lives.

Two-thirds (67%) of respondents said they had experienced negative attitudes or behaviours in the past year. Nearly half (48%) said they had experienced this from their own family members. The regular exclusion from social situations has an impact, with large numbers of those surveyed saying it had left them feeling lonely, isolated and lacking in confidence.

Sarah Adedjei, 23, from Erith in southeast London wasn't born deaf but lost her hearing as a child. "One time, somebody came up to me and asked for directions. I said: 'Sorry I didn't catch that, I'm deaf,' and they said 'Oh, it doesn't matter'. I said, 'No, I can help, just repeat what you said,' and they just said 'Oh, sorry, it doesn't matter,' and walked off. This happens so often. It makes you feel like you don't matter."

Crystal Rolfe, director of strategy at the charity, said: "Our research shows that every day people face negative attitudes and behaviours at work, when they're out shopping, and even from their families.

ATR Comment: A percentage of deaf people may never be able to integrate, regardless how accommodating others are.  Issues of communications, degree or type of deafness, time acquired, and lifestyles can have a direct bearing on inclusion, as can societal attitudes of a minority of deaf areas.

It is all too easy to go to media and apportion 'blame' to everyone else because deafness has limited your options,  or affected your ability to effectively socialise.  Of course there are areas within mainstream who don't have the patience or take the time to include, you just have to accept this will always be the case.  We deaf work at percentages 100% inclusion is a pipe dream, I could suggest 30% or less is nearer the most accurate guess, the same percentage as the effectiveness of lip-reading..   You cannot legislate the man in the street to accept or include you, so it comes down to their attitude, and, ours.  various inclusion laws and Acts only apply to SYSTEMS.  We both have to work at it. Many areas of the Deaf community don't actually want inclusion as most would assume the definition is, but prefer 'own' society as such. 

We can take examples or racial/ethnic or religious areas e.g. who like  'Deaf' prefer their own 'community' with own ethos and norms, and own 'language'.  Deaf people are just one area of 100s who already run social areas on a parallel direction, but not along with,  what we define as the 'mainstream'.  The endless drive to attain status for the Deaf communities, 'deaf-only' areas, even sign language which may well assist some deaf, but just is another 'barrier' perhaps mainstream won't try to overcome to help, and anyway is only one type of communication assist amid numerous others deaf use. 

Even then there is no consensus which 'format' is 'best' for deaf people.  Each deaf person has own road to travel, it is perhaps illogical to insist mainstream accommodate them all.  Nobody mentions the elephant in the room deafness itself is a debilitating sensory disability, and no amount of portraying deafness and hearing loss,  as something else, is changing the realities, because 10m suffer from it, and most of those would want rid of it, even those who go deaf after formative education, are against the aspect of a deaf community,because it is still Isolation, a cell with curtains on the bars,  with strict rules and norms to accommodate a drive for cultural status, and in an endless linguistic war it isn't really winning.  Many deafened or HI, don't  adopt sign language use, because they believe it restricts options, and it means reliance on others.  Whilst Deaf BSL users may accept this as a norm, most of us won't, we have had hearing  so we know what we have lost, or are losing.  We also know the first reaction to deafness is why me? followed by anger at others.  Deaf who never heard, rebrand it as a personal discrimination.

LOSS is the main criteria here, loss = Disability.  Those for whom hearing is something they have never had, are really in no position to declare deafness is not an issue, and the simplistic answer is to teach everyone with hearing to use sign language, it would not meet many millions who either do not want it, or want a cure or alleviations instead.  Taken in perspective (And playing Devil's advocate), Mainstream has 1,000s of areas (Hearing and disabled), demanding they adapt to include all manner of needs (And some not so much needs but politics).  Whilst BSL/Culture/clubs can meet a social need, it probably ruins members of it, for seeing a valid point in integrating with others not like them, or even unable to communicate with properly. Statistically the basis of the culture is diminishing too, with an 80% reduction in deaf schools, mainstreaming of deaf children, and huge demise's of deaf clubs too.

We are in transition mode, and the 'Deaf' community looking like it's fighting a desperate rear-guard action to stem the tide. In any case, they are a minority amid deaf and HI, so consensus on what they believe is the way ahead, isn't actually relevant to the majority.  If they lose a deaf culture to deaf being included is that not a price worth paying?  Clearly some say no, it is that area, which will basically oppose real inclusion.  

The article included from the RNID, I fear is unhelpful, it's stats including non-deaf people, workers in the field, and vested interest charities too, 6,000 out of 10m suggests, nothing substantive, or definitive.  We cannot keep blaming the many, for the antics of the few, or, we alienate them too. Life happens, we just need to accept and get on with that.  We also need to clarify the minority are not the majority or can speak for them either.  Nothing for us without us, but nothing without mainstream either.   If we treat them as enemies we are always at odds.  We aren't numbers, but we have very complex needs, with no single answer.

ATR - MEDIA

 

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!

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.

You don't even have to lip-read

 

2024, or not?

The state of the UK  Deaf and Hearing Loss Community today.

During 2024, ATR Media plans to expose many many myths portrayed by the disinformation sources centred around Deaf culture and Language, for too long  distortions and plain lies have been order of the day, each time accompanied by bullying,  attacks, and threats.

ATR Media is relatively a new outlet for MM a seasoned acquired deaf blogger, of many year standing, was amid the first to use YouTube and own captions, even sign on You Tube. Was the #1 UK blog in the USA with 6m+ accredited views, but, blocked in the UK.  ATR is an acknowledged challenger of disinformation being given to deaf people, and deliberate ignorance directed towards hearing loss and non signing deaf which is discriminatory and divisive, a threat to real inclusion, and for real access which the BSL campaigner DOES NOT REALLY WANT. Mostly comprised of scare stories and blaming everyone else.

Let us be clear, rank and file deaf do NOT support what these people are saying or doing, the state does, because deaf and HI won't elect their own representation for the same reason ATR opposes it, we get on with it and know martyrdom gets you nowhere.  Regardless, none of these profile campaigners have any mandate to speak for us, or about us.  One tail wagging a  dozen dogs.

The BDA e.g. claims 150,000 BSL using people, but the forthcoming ATR MEDIA video coverage of the GCSE will show only 700 responded to it and 76% were SUPPORT charities/hearing people, who make a living from BSL dependency,  along with a random assortment of vested interests, hoping to get work/wage being teachers for a class that has no viable curriculum.  

The consultation NEVER took place, there is no evidence rank and file responded at all, the input was amateur, cut and pasted from other promotions, and plain unsourced, essentially,  NO DEAF promoter of the GCSE class, wanted BSL to access the consultations. Why would they? as none were apparently sign using. Crucial evidence this isn't even a campaign by or for deaf people. Vaguely described as an awareness class that will empower deaf in the future, but, WITHOUT them.

Over 2023 ATR MEDIA also expressed concerns, two leading UK charities the British Deaf Association and  RNID (or whatever re-branded cover it uses today).  Both alleged to be manufacturing statistics to get more funds, using the 'nobody really knows anyway' fact to 'think of a number and double it' system,  year on year..  ALL Deaf and Hearing loss charities were rejecting devolved administration to retain overall control of support, funding, campaign directions, and HQ's,  in the Southern counties of England. Local autonomy refused.  The BSL Act was brought in and has since failed to get any foothold, in Wales a BSL Act wasn't brought in and felt unnecessary, the only UK area to make the real point.

Is Deaf culture valid? It's base had diminished by 80% (Deaf schools/Clubs), less than 20 deaf schools now exist, with Wales etc, having  none at all.  2024 is suggested as the final nail in many deaf clubs' coffins, as living and running costs mean mass closures, with deaf being reluctant to fund it themselves or simply cannot.  ATR will cover BSL too, given the 'Proof' of a language (A Dictionary),  is 20thc, not as absurdly posted by the BDA/UCLA and others, as the 7thc. 

Hearing teachers dictate the directions of BSL, NOT deaf people, so 'normalisation' and indeed the GCSE class, will mean regional signing, will go to the wall, and most translators do NOT use BSL grammar, but Sign Supported English, they don't want to make more issues for the deaf with its absurd DIY BSL grammar, a key component in holding back real deaf awareness and a barrier to accessing what deaf need to know to live and work as adults.  No BSL active campaigner uses it anyway, so why demand it of others?

ATR MEDIA will also expose deaf bullies who run BSL sites online, who ban, block, attack and threaten anyone who wants debate and facts to be rule of the day, again, most centre in English Cities where higher concentrations of deaf live but who're out of touch with everyone else, all go it alone areas feathering own particular nests, exhibiting blatant bias, and there is no real inclusive policy.

Over 2023 ATR MEDIA also expressed concern regarding BSL Deaf attacks on hearing aids, cochlear implantations, other alleviations, and genetic/health advances.  With parents called abusers and all sorts, this is NOT who deaf people or others with hearing loss are about, and we sincerely hope in 2024, the rot stops there.

ATR MEDIA. (2024)

ATR MEDIA is a TEXT-BASED medium, forget the myth of Deaf signers, we can all READ.