Most people from both communities are born to parents in the majority group (hearing and straight). Parents have dreams of what their ideal child would look like. The ideal child would be hearing and straight, who would grow up to be educated, musically-inclined, and articulate in a dominant spoken language, and walk down the church aisle in a traditional heterosexual wedding and produce children of the same. In other words: normal as defined by the majority in medical and societal terms.

When that dream is shattered upon the discovery that the child is either gay or Deaf, parent reactions vary from mild acceptance to outright grief and denial. It is the latter that seems to be the most common reaction. Self-blame and fear of rejection by family, friends, and religious/social groups, especially those with non-western cultural backgrounds are often intertwined with the grief and denial. For those parents who grieve, there are stages before acceptance occurs. For the purposes of comparison, the grief and denial stages will be discussed here.

In the case of the GLBT, this often meant there is hope that homosexuality is just a phase to be grown out of. Sometimes parents go to church or temples and pray for a miracle to occur so that their child would be straight again. There is the perception that homosexuality is a reversible condition, and that it is just an issue of morality that could be resolved. Once this condition is reversed, the child would fit into hetero-centric society better. To read further on what the parents experience, scroll down the article to this question: What Do the Parents of Gay Men/Lesbian/Bisexuals experience.

Parents of Deaf children go through grief and denial, too. Jamie Berke posted an article discussing parental reactions to the discovery of their child’s hearing loss. A website on “hearing-challenged sector” posted a post on family reactions. It’s worth reading, just so you get a sense of what parents of Deaf children experience when they learn their children’s diagnoses. In this article, one mother stated:

“I found it hard to believe, then I thought she’d be a deaf child but she’ll be able to hear later and just go deaf when she was old-like people often do. Even now, when I know she is profoundly deaf and she will always be, there is a little voice somewhere in my head saying perhaps she will hear again. None of my friends or family believed she was deaf.”

It is this hope that their children would hear that impels parents to search for treatments to “treat hearing loss and deafness”. For examples of treatments and procedures, check out the Stanford Wellsphere website . Confusing options are explored, with the CI and AVT-only option currently being the most popular choice. Before the advent of CI technology, Deaf children were often taken to church in the hopes that they would be miraculously healed through prayers. Sometimes they were taken to foreign countries like China to undergo alternative medical approaches such as acupuncture to try and heal the “broken ears”. It is often the parental dream that the Deaf child would one day be able to hear sounds and music, and speak articulately because this ability would help their child fit into audio-centric society.

It should be noted that although there are parallels between the reactions of parents towards their discovery of their children’s respective conditions, there is one important distinction between the two groups. Deaf children often don’t get to see their parents’ initial reactions because they were often infants or toddlers at the time of discovery whereas Gay children tend to be much older when their parents discover their orientation. Deaf adults could only infer as to the intensity of their parents’ initial reaction, but Gay adults often bear the scars of witnessing their parents’ initial reaction.

(BLOGGER’S NOTE: There was some difficulty in posting this particular part of my  series to DeafRead, so I had to delete this post and re-publish out of sequence.)

After viewing the last 5 posts, we cannot say that the Deaf and Gay communities have nothing in common.  In fact, as members of oppressed minorities, they share so much in common.   Those who deny this would have to be ignorant, or determinedly oblivious, in light of such enormous evidence!

Let’s review the evidence in a nutshell:

a)   Parental reactions to the initial discovery of the child’s deafness or homosexuality are quite similar.  These negative reactions are reinforced by society’s views.

b)   Both Gay and Deaf people have been systematically marginalized and oppressed through the use of negative medical labels, therapy and technology designed to assimilate them.

c)   Both Deaf and Gay people have to overcome barriers in education, politics and employment/corporate spheres.

d)   Eugenics is becoming an issue once more in this century for the Deaf community, and may soon be an issue for the LGBT community.

All the above parallels between the two communities prove that Suter was correct when she said:

“…We must fight the Third Reich mentality that says the greatest goal is the perfection of the human race.”

Some of you might be offended and outraged by Suter’s reference to the Third Reich mentality.  Some of you may even cry Godwin’s Law and attempt to destroy her credibility along with mine.

The best explanation for Godwin’s Law (which states that As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches) is that when an online debate becomes longer and hotter, someone will call someone else a Nazi, or label a position as Nazism.  When that happens, the debate becomes useless.

Godwin’s point:  “Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate… overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.” (Wikipedia)

In other words: Don’t cry wolf.  Remember that story of the boy who cried wolf?  After the first two false alarms, the villagers refused to believe him as he cried out for help when the wolf actually showed up.  That wolf ate him.  This principle applies here.

We are NOT crying wolf.   In my view, The Third Reich mentality applies here since we are dealing with the perception of society that to be deaf and gay, respectively, is to be flawed.

We must ask ourselves this question:

Have we truly progressed much since World War II, where the Deaf, disabled and homosexual people were sent to concentration camps along with the Jews and murdered for not conforming to the eugenicist Aryan master race ideal?

If your answer is “yes”, sit back and reconsider the parallels in the first paragraph of this post, and consider my following words:

True, no one gets sent to concentration camps and murdered because of their “deficiencies” today.   However, the Deaf continue to receive the disability label and are therefore considered a burden on society.  An entire establishment is created to systematically suppress, if not crush, ASL as a language and culture in the quest to rehabilitate Deaf children.

A great number of Deaf children are raised to become “listening and speaking” adults without ASL or Deaf role models.  They are assimilated into the majority society using cochlear implant technology and AVT, regardless of cost in terms of actual language and literacy development when technology and therapy fail to benefit.  It must be noted that a minority of North American parents buck this trend and ensure that their children receive both ASL and English languages and cultures, regardless of whether technology is used or not.

Eugenics is becoming an issue as we have seen in the U.K.  When Deaf adults and children do not fit the societal ideal of the perfect hearing, able-bodied human being, they are treated as second-class citizens.

The Gay community continues to struggle for rights in the USA, despite having tossed out the mental disorder label.  There are places in North America where homosexuality is still unofficially labeled as deviant.  Therapy continues to be offered with the goal of helping Gay people conform to the heterosexual ideal.  Therefore, members of the Gay community continue to be treated like second-class citizens simply because they still do not fit the societal ideal (master race).

I reiterate that because both groups do not fit society’s ideal that consists of able-bodied, hearing, heterosexual human beings, they get labeled as disabled, mental and moral misfits and/or burdens on society.  They are given labels by professionals in the medical, education and political systems to mark them for rehabilitation.

However, there is a way we can combat the negative labeling given by the majority, as Suter suggests:

“… There is also a paradox to labels. They can also be a language of empowerment. For years, professionals tried to label deaf people as hearing-impaired. Almost every major piece of disability legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, incorporated the term hearing impaired. It was thought to be a more sensitive, more neutral term than the word deaf.

Unfortunately, to the deaf community, it wasn’t considered to be a culturally sensitive term. They rebelled. As a community, they claimed ownership to the definition they preferred — deaf. They weren’t about to let outsiders, even well-meaning professionals, define what they would be called. The deaf community saw power in labels. They were determined to be the ones defining who they were. And they’ve won.”

Gradually, rehabilitation professionals have given way to their lobbying efforts. Now the word preferred by the people it represents is being used. The moral is if you have to be labeled — you have the right to choose the label you want.”

The Deaf may have won the right to label themselves as DEAF, and the LGBT community may have destroyed their medical label, but the fight against being treated like second-class citizens is not yet over.  The Third Reich mentality inherent in society at large looms like a Goliath over both communities.

The Gay community’s successful removal of the oppressive mental disorder label against them teaches us an important lesson.

We, the Deaf, are David.  We must put that stone in our sling. Twirl that sling and throw that stone directly into Goliath’s head.  Then, the Third Reich mentality WILL fall.   (That fall may take a long time.  But, remember: the higher they are, the harder they will fall.)

QUESTION:  What is the best stone to use in our sling?

ANSWER: the destruction of the medical/disability label.

Once we remove that medical label, we can make changes in the way society views us.  We must educate the public and politicians on ASL and Deaf culture.  We must emphasize the importance of bilingualism for Deaf children in education, especially in early childhood.

We can lobby for Deaf children to be removed from the umbrella of Special Education, and placed in the cultural and linguistic category under the umbrella of multiculturalism.  Only then will Deaf children be given FULL access through bona fide languages (ASL and English, for example).

Only then can the Deaf community truly begin their cultural and linguistic renaissance.  An ASL phoenix would finally rise from the ashes of attempted linguistic and cultural genocide that result from audism spawned more than 128 years ago.

This is something GLBT and Deaf people have in common with one major difference that should be noted.  There is such a thing as the Deaf gene. Deafness (defined as the state of being Deaf) is hereditary in some families that can span several generations.  Right now, the conventional wisdom is that homosexuality is not hereditary.  Third or fourth generation Gay families are unheard of, to date.  In fact, there is a debate raging on whether the gay gene actually exists.

As discussed in Part I, most of the people in the LGBT and Deaf  communities are born to heterosexual and hearing parents. There is one difference between the two groups though.  There are well documented cases of the hereditary Deaf gene spanning several generations in families, which consist of Deaf parents, Deaf grandparents, Deaf aunts, uncles and cousins, with a few hearing relatives thrown in.  In these families, deafness often is not viewed as an aberration.

As for the gay gene, there is much debate on whether it even exists.  There is no official documentation on whether there are third or fourth generations of homosexuals, to my knowledge.  (Unofficially speaking, I know a Deaf man who comes from a large Deaf family of six children.  Three of these children are gay, including this Deaf man.   His father’s uncle had 12 children, three of them gay.)  At present, we have gay parents either adopting children or conceiving children through artificial insemination.

This leads one to wonder about whether eugenics would go into play for the gay community as it has for the Deaf community. We have all watched the debate raging in the United Kingdom over the proposed bill regulating embryonic selection…in short, the mandatory selection of hearing embryos over embryos found to have the Deaf gene…at the cost of the latter embryo’s life. Different views have been written on the subject in blogs like Mishka Zena, Digital Toast, and The Ouch!

Supposing that the gay gene has indeed been proven to exist beyond a doubt, and a gay couple may wish to select an embryo that possesses that particular gene.  Would there be such a hue and cry about this as there was in the controversy surrounding the Lichys?

Remember, audism is at play in the UK situation.  What makes one think that homophobia and heterosexism would not be a factor in this potentially controversial scenario?

Given the discriminatory practices in medicine, education, corporate and political spheres of society, the question of whether to remain closeted and pass in society or to come out begs exploration.

We know that there are a good number of Deaf people who reject the medical view and favour the linguistic and cultural view.  Granted, there are also a number of Deaf people who continue to accept and even support the medical model of Deafness.  This polar division is quite evident at www.DeafRead.com and www.DeafVideo.TV if people have viewed the types of blogs and vlogs posted there.  DeafRead and DVTV are just a microcosm of what is out in the world.

We also know that there are Deaf people who debates with themselves whether it is better to “come out” like the Deaf adults who grew up oral and then reject that background and embrace ASL and the cultural view. There’s also the strong inclination in some Deaf people to “remain in the closet” and pass in mainstream society. View www.TheCochlearImplantOnline.com .  Those who view deafness as a pathology encourage passing in society.  This can be seen at www.DeafVillage.com, and to some degree, DeafRead.

In addition to the opposing camps in the Deaf community, we also see in both websites a group of moderate Deaf people.  These moderates espouse “diversity” and criticize “Deaf extremists” for their refusal to accept communicative tools that both help Deaf children pass in society and deny the validity of ASL as a language and culture.   Again, a reflection of what is happening in the world.

As for the gay community, is there the same kind of internal debate about whether to come out or remain in the closet?  To this, I would have to answer yes, although I am no expert on the gay community.  Nor can I claim to speak for the gay people.

I can respond to this question based on my experience with two close girlfriends more than ten years ago who informed me that they were lovers.  I was the first heterosexual friend they told.  I witnessed their struggle in the process of coming out, and their fear of being rejected on the basis of their orientation.  To this day, these women remain my friends.  You can also see the struggle between coming out and staying closeted in different situations in the various links I provided in Part II: The Impact of Medical Labels.

Another question is asked:  Are there a large number of Gays that still accept the medical view?

I can only provide part of the answer, based on deductive thinking.  Gay activists obviously reject the medical view as evidenced in the activism of 1973 that saw the removal of the mental disorder label.  Judging from the annual Gay Pride Rainbow Parade, there are definitely a large number of Gay people that reject the medical view on an international scale.

While investigating the answer to this question, I discovered a few links that show there are those who still view homosexuality as a mental illness in need of treatment. Organizations like Exodus International, a restorative psychology group and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, which advocates for the ex-gay community, are set up for people who wish to change their sexual orientation from “exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality.”)

The majority of the gay community does not endorse these organizations nor do they endorse the medical view of homosexuality.  In fact, these organizations are considered by the gays to be operated by extreme right-wing people.

Then we have moderate gay right-wingers who call themselves Gay Republicans.  They set up a website called Gay Patriots.  They have a reputation for criticizing gay men that do not hide who they are, and encouraging people to not attend gay prides.

To display one’s identity in conflict with societal expectations, or to pass in society?  That is the question! Clearly, there is an intense internal debate that rage in the Gay community as it does in the Deaf community on this question. Both communities do contain groups or camps that fit in a continuum from  “left-wingers” to “right-wingers” with the “moderates” smack-dab in the middle.

We have seen the GLBT community’s success in removing the pathological label and associative stigma from the American Psychiatric Association list of mental disorders and witnessed the rise of political, corporate and celebrity power among the gay people.

Today, we are seeing the controversial inclusion of alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality in curriculum in schools.   This is a unique phenomenon, especially since the focus is heavily on multiculturalism in North America.

When one thinks of multiculturalism, the first thing to come to mind would be conventional cultures of people such as the First Nations People, French, Jews, Mexicans, and Asians and so on forth. These ethnic groups meet the conventional requirement of what it means to be cultural.  Culture typically requires a language or religion element.

In light of this requirement, the LGBT community would not be able to claim the status of a culture, as the gay people are not a linguistic or a religious group, unlike the Jews or the Navajo, for example. Yet, the LGBT community was able to get the one thing that binds this community together: sex orientation into the required mainstream curriculum of educational systems in North America.

By contrast, the Deaf, which is a cultural and linguistic minority, meet the conventional requirement of a culture.  ASL is indeed the language of the Deaf.  Yet, under the audist disability model, ASL is reduced to the status of a communication tool, on a par with cued speech, total communication, and Morse code.  ASL is now reduced to merely an option.

ASL is denied to Deaf children whose IEPs typically state that they must use oral, cochlear implants, AVT, Cued Speech, Signed Exact English and other communicative methods from Kindergarten on through secondary levels.  (Although rare, there are a few children whose IEPs do state the need for ASL.)  Most IEPs often state these children must be mainstreamed in public schools in accordance to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  The reason for mainstreaming Deaf children is that educators and the public view public schools as the least restrictive environment (LRE) possible for the Deaf children.

Unfortunately, mainstreamed settings are actually more restrictive due to reduced access to linguistic, social and academic aspects of the educational experience due to the need to learn through interpreters or rely on hearing and speech, which may not always be “100% effective” for the Deaf child.  Opinions have been given in a document by several Deaf and professionals who work with the Deaf on why mainstreamed settings are the most restrictive environment for Deaf children.

What is even more disabling is the fact that while there are now a great number of gay teachers who serve as role models in many schools in North America, Deaf children have a great dearth of Deaf role models in the public educational system. Deaf teachers are seldom if ever hired in the public schools unless there are self-contained classrooms that basically function like one-room schoolhouses that serve Deaf children of all grades. Those Deaf teachers are often told to NOT use ASL with Deaf students, but rather adopt one of the artificial communicative signing systems approved by the school board, i.e. Signed English, or Signed Exact English.

The irony here is that in some North American schools, ASL is provided as a second language course option along with Spanish, for example, to hearing high school students.   In Alberta, ASL is taught to grade 4 hearing students as a second language.  Yet as was previously stated, Deaf children are denied ASL as a first language, which would have given them the most access to curricular expectations in every subject in the education system!

Only in a few schools that are bilingual-bicultural is ASL offered as the language of instruction as well as the language of study.  This means ASL curriculum is available in these schools for Deaf children with the express purpose of enhancing the linguistic acquisition and skills of children in both ASL and English.  These schools are where you would find the most number of Deaf teachers and role models.

In short, Deaf children in Maryland public schools, for example, learn about the GLBT community and their lifestyle in schools, but ASL and Deaf/ASL culture is only optional at best and excluded or denigrated at worst.  What is more, ASL is considered the very last resort for Deaf children if they should fail from the mainstream setting and all other offered options are exhausted.  When ASL is finally considered and offered to a Deaf child, it is often too late.  By then, the child has approached or gone past the window of opportunity for optimal language acquisition, with the result that this child would most likely be semi-lingual and semi-literate.

This has not always been the case for Deaf children.  Before 1880, schools for the deaf flourished.  There were Deaf role models for children galore, and classes were taught using sign language.  There is an excellent article, Women With Disabilities: How To Become A Boat Rocker In Life, by Sue Suter, former U.S. Commissioner Of Rehabilitation, and President of World Institute On Disabilities Services.  She goes on to explain the lessons she learned from the Deaf community, particularly that “history is a vast warning system.”  Here is an excerpt from her presentation at a New Zealand conference.

“Years ago, almost 50 percent of all teachers for the deaf in the United States were deaf, themselves. More than teachers, they were imparters of a graceful language of signs that were rooted in the deaf community, they were role models for entire generations of young deaf students.

Then, in 1880, the renaissance came to an abrupt end. At an international conference of rehabilitation professionals — much like this one — the school of thought called oralism won the day. American Sign Language was discouraged. Speech acquisition was made paramount, so many schools no longer used deaf teachers; they were now considered bad role models of communication. And perhaps the most blatant wrong committed at the Milan Conference of 1880 was that not a single deaf teacher was allowed to vote on the changes.

It was not so long ago that stories filtered from our own Illinois School for the Deaf about a young deaf girl who asked a hearing dorm counselor if she was going to die soon. She was nearing graduation, and she had only seen a few deaf adults. What happened to the others? This is an extreme example. But it points out the vital importance of role models.” (Suter. 1993)

This just drives home the point that the GLBT community has achieved so much where the Deaf have lost, and are trying to regain: namely, role models everywhere in the educational system, as well as language and culture.

BLOGGER’S NOTE: Before viewing this blog, go to Deaf and Gay Parallels Part I: Parents of Deaf and Gay Children first.

The mental health and medical professions have contributed much to the devaluation and marginalization of gay and deaf people respectively with one difference: the Gay community is way ahead of the Deaf community in removing the stigma against homosexuality and breaking through barriers in employment as well as corporate and political arenas.

Up until twenty-three years ago, both deafness and homosexuality have been viewed as disorders.  Homosexual people were viewed as having a mental disorder.  They were expected to act, and be heterosexual.  For anyone to come out as homosexual meant they risked getting labeled as deviant, both morally and psychologically.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association board of directors removed homosexuality from the APA list of mental disorders called Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).   However, this decision turned out to be controversial, and a new category was added in 1980 to the DSM: ego-dystonic homosexuality. Controversy continued to rage over this new label.  It wasn’t until 1986 that homosexuality was eventually removed from the DSM altogether.  For a more complete history, read Homosexuality and Mental Health.    Another article discusses a political agenda to oppose homosexuality and oppress through the use of the mental disorder label. (Unfortunately, to view the entire article, you would have to purchase it.)  Just a couple weeks ago, an Ottawa article came out on the issue of sexual reorientation therapy and APA’s reaction towards the issue. (Pun unintended.)

When homosexuality was delisted the first time in 1973 as a mental disorder, this was actually the beginning, and not the end, of the long struggle to remove the stigma against homosexuality.  A heavy price was paid for this de-stigmatization, literally in blood and tears.

Today, as a result of the removal of the medical label, the gay community enjoy enormous political clout, at least in Canada more so than in the U.S.A.  In Canada, we have at least two openly gay politicians: Scott Brison, a current Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party, and George Smitherman, currently Ontario’s Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, as well as Deputy Premier of Ontario.  This is mostly due to the fact that their rights are enshrined (and protected) in the Canada Bill of Rights.

In the USA, judging from the media headlines in the past couple of years, politicians who have been outed to the public often lose their positions.  Many states do not appear to have provisions in their respective constitutions to protect gay people from discrimination.   Some states have attempted to exclude gays and lesbians from anti-discrimination laws and policies.  Colorado is one example.  There is a map of the USA showing states that have protection for gays against workplace discrimination.

At first glance, one might be inclined to think that there are no openly gay politicians in state or federal governments.  Upon further digging, one will discover a small number of openly gay (or GLBT or LGBT) politicians in the U.S.A, but they are not quite well known to mainstream society, with the possible exception of Barney Frank (D-MA).  He is well-known, popular and has the support of his voters.

In entertainment, where people used to remain closeted to attain movie star status, gay celebrities now wield more political clout in America. Ellen DeGeneres is touted as the most powerful gay celebrity on TV.  Close behind are Rosie O’Donnell and Jodie Foster. These women are said to use their star power to support suicide prevention for gay youth hotline. This is in direct contrast with the past.  People used to have to remain closeted in order to get ahead in show business.

Advances are made by the GLBT community in the corporate sphere as well. It looks like the glass ceiling is being broken through here, but there is still the issue of having to “pass” as a member of the majority group, as we have seen in US politics. For more information on the challenges of dismantling corporate barriers, read the article, Gay in Corporate America.

The Deaf, on the other hand, are still saddled with the stigmatizing label of disability. This medical perspective of the Deaf has coloured societal attitudes towards Deaf people for more than 100 years, to this very day.   Deaf children from birth, or from the age of identification, are assigned this status of “having hearing loss”, irrespective of the degree of loss…even if it’s only a few decibels. Thus, because of this “disability”, it then becomes the mission of the medical, audiological, speech and educational professionals to rehabilitate Deaf children so they can become “functioning members in society.”

To this end, Deaf children are placed under the auspices of Special Education in the Department of Education in the USA, and in the Ministry of Education in each of the ten provincial governments of Canada.  As we all know, Special Education has been set up for children of all kinds of disabilities.  IEPs (Individualized Educational Plans) have been set up for each and every Deaf child, in every possible educational setting.  The label “Communicative Disorder” or “Communicative Exceptionality” follows the Deaf child from Kindergarten through Grade 12 in Ontario.  There are other labels used in the U.S.A. View this link below as an example.

These labels are designed to get resources to help the Deaf children learn to “listen and speak”.  One example of such resources is titled Language Is Discovery, written by speech-language pathologists.   Resources are provided by rehabilitative professionals (audiologists and speech pathologists) in tandem with audist organizations like Canada’s VOICE and the U.S-based AGBell.

These organizations actively advocate the use of the cochlear implant and auditory-verbal therapy (AVT).  All of this occurs in support of Alexander Graham Bell’s 1884 objective, which was: “we should try ourselves to forget that they are deaf. We should try to teach them to forget that they are deaf.”  (Ladd, Paddy. (2003) Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood.)  This quote is also used in an article by DeLand in the Volta Review 1992 9:418.    More information on this can be found in Patti Durr’s People of the Eye blog.

The audist medical view excludes the possibility that the Deaf community would be viewed as a cultural and linguistic minority.  In fact, the pathologization of cultural deafness “results in the suppression of the oppressed group’s language and culture”.  The language in question is ASL.  Harlan Lane discusses this in depth in his book, The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community.

On the political and corporate front, the Deaf community in North America has made some strides.  Thanks to the Deaf President Now protest of 1988, we now have Deaf Presidents of Gallaudet University (I. King Jordan, then Dr. Robert Davila).

In Canada, we have Gary Malkowski, who was a NDP Member of Provincial Parliament in Ontario from 1990 to 1995, the first Deaf politician, ever.  In the U.S.A., the late Marcella M. Meyer was the first Deaf delegate to a California Democratic Party convention.  At present, I know of no Deaf politician in the USA, either at state or federal level.

In the corporate arena, we have John Yeh, whose ascent to CEO status did not come easy.  He now owns a multi-million firm. To read about the dismantling of barriers he had to do to get to where he is, this article.

What I found interesting is that I was hard pressed to find Deaf people, either celebrity, corporate or political, with the same clout as Ellen DeGeneres, or Scott Brison today.  Although we have Marlee Matlin, who is a well-known actor in both the Deaf community and mainstream America, she still has nowhere near as much influence as DeGeneres. The Deaf community has a long way to go before they can break the glass ceiling as successfully as the GLBT community has.

Below is a translation of this ASL vlog:

“You’re deaf? Oh! You’re deaf?!  You can’t hear me?! HELLO!”  “Can. You. Read. My. Lips? A little bit?!…. I’m so sorry.”   “You can’t talk?”

“Oh! You talk so beautifully!”

“You’re so smart.  You’re not like those who sign.  Poor things! You talk so beautifully!  Sigh!”

“You’re gay?!  You’re kidding me!  That’s unnatural!  It’s immoral! It’s so wrong!”

“You have mental health issues.  You need to get some counselling. There’s therapy available to help you get straight.  It’s better to be heterosexual.”

Did you notice the similarities between the Deaf and the Gay? What are the similarities?

a)    Negative views by the majority of both deafness and homosexuality

b)    Oppressive behaviours towards both Deaf and Gay people

For the Deaf, it’s called audism which is the view that it’s better to (have the ability to) hear.  The first example (given at the very beginning of the vlog) is that of pity, which is expressed frequently.  To be deaf is to be disabled.   The second example: It’s better to speak than to sign. If good oral skills is displayed, one is praised. The exhibition of good oral skills implies that an individual has “overcome deafness.”

For the LGBT, homophobia is expressed through sneering as well as terms used such as: unnatural and immoral.  Heterosexism is the belief that it is better to be heterosexual.  There is the belief that homosexuality can be resolved through mental health therapy to overcome same-sex attraction and go straight.

I have created a 6-part blog series under the title “Parallels Between Gay and Deaf Communities.” The 6 parts consists of:

I: Parents of Gay and Deaf Children
II: The Impact of Medical Labels
III: Culture and Education
IV: The Burning Question: To Come Out or Continue to Pass in Society?
V: Eugenics
VI: CONCLUSION

By reading all the six blog posts, one will see many parallels between the experiences of both minority groups that show beyond a shadow of doubt that not only do homophobia and heterosexism exist, but so does audism.

V/BLOGGER’S NOTES:

CLARIFICATION: For simplicity’s sake, I use the term gay to describe the LGBT community, although other terms may crop up here and in my subsequent posts. I have been advised that some individuals prefer the term gay. Others prefer LGBT. Yet others prefer GLBT. Some even accept the term homosexual. Some are offended by certain labels, while others embrace them.

ASL TRANSLATION HICCUPS:  I apologize for the lack of ASL vlog translations for each of the subsequent blogs.  I did make the vlog translations; however, I was dissatisfied with the way I wrote the blogs and edited them.  This rendered the ASL translations obsolete.Preparations must be made for the approaching school year.  So, time has run out for me to redo the translations.   ASL translations will be produced, but I cannot give a definite date for that.  It’s important to have bilingual versions that are of equal quality, so it will take a good amount of time to do a decent job at translating.  Thank you for your patience.

COMMENT AREA: Oh, and one more thing. I have video comments available below.  You have the option of making video comments (ASL) and text comments.  I look forward to receiving your thoughts.