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.

Below is a translation of this vlog:

Hello, everyone! Welcome to Part II of this vlog. If you have not seen Part II, please view Part I then return here. You will then understand what I’m discussing. If you have already viewed the first part, enjoy the rest of this vlog.

Anger: Righteous vs Selfish

I wish to discuss the third term: anger. There are differences between the two types of anger: righteous anger and selfish anger. After this discussion, you will know how to recognize the type of anger exhibited. Let’s begin with selfish anger.

Selfish anger. Is the purpose of selfish anger to protect others? No. Protect the self? No. Is selfish anger used to improve society? Nope. To correct other people’s behaviour? No. This anger results in attacking others if one doesn’t get one’s way, or if one’s self-esteem is low. So, one belittles others in order to make oneself feel better, or more superior. We have seen this selfish anger exhibited by Jack, who belittled Troy, so he would feel better after losing during the hockey game. He did not like it when he was soundly trounced. So, when Troy called him an idiot for trying to assault him, it stung his already-battered self-esteem. In retalation, Jack verbally attacked him. During our discussion, Troy stated that Jack wanted to pull him down just because he was angry.

Now, on to righteous anger. What does it look like? Is the purpose here to protect others? To protect the self if one were in a bad situation? To improve society? To correct other people’s behaviours? Yes, to all the above. We can recognize righteous anger in the story I described. The anger Troy experienced was righteous, but the choice of action he took, i.e. the hitting of Jack’s stick wasn’t the best choice of action. I don’t agree with violence. Still, he did feel the kind of anger that impelled him to tell Jack he was wrong.

As for Troy’s friends, they decided to drop the road hockey game instead of continuing to play. This action was a message to Jack that his insulting Troy’s parents on the basis of their being deaf was not to be tolerated nor acceptable. The friends showed their righteous anger in their action of leaving the game even though it was not finished. When Jack’s older brother reprimanded him, he was showing righteous anger. He was sending his brother the message loud and clear that it was unacceptable to belittle on the basis of the inability to hear.

The actions of leaving in the middle of the game, and reprimanding were intended to defend Troy and his parents. The third action, which was Troy’s approaching Jack’s parent to inform him of the situation, was intended to correct Jack’s behaviour, and to try to raise awareness that racism/audism is not appropriate.

Righteous and selfish anger. Now we see the difference between the two. Behaviours associated with each type of anger are different, as well. There are differences between behaviours that occur in response to racism and audism, and behaviours that come from audism/racism.

Remember:

The goal of righteous anger is to protect others, or to change and/or remove an unacceptable situation.

The goal of selfish anger is to make oneself better by belittling others.

The question that we must ponder is this:

Which kind of anger is more effective in achieving positive changes in society?

ADDENDUM: (This is not in the vlog.) It is up to us to carefully choose actions that reflect the true reason behind our anger. We can have righteous anger, and yet choose the wrong actions that would hinder our success in improving the society in which we live. It is important to examine our motives, our options and the ethical ramifications of each action considered. Then, act.

After having watched the blog-spat between Carl and MM, I’d like to point out something that captured my attention in Kalalau’s Blunder by MM. MM accused Carl of fomenting dissent. That stopped me dead in my tracks and caused me to mull over the situation.

“Fomenting dissent”…hmm. I will get back to that phrase in a moment. Please bear with me for now.

We all know that MM considers The Queen’s English as superior to BSL and ASL. MM’s opinion is a given. No one can argue this after having read his blog posts and comments in various other blogs. He demands access to ASL in the form of English text. He seems to be under the impression that providing access to ASL in the form of English merely requires transcribing [in the sense that some think that ASL is a manual expression of English] rather than actual time-consuming translating.

We also know that Carl considers ASL as a language in its own right, on a par with English… justifiably so. We know that Carl is of the opinion that to discuss ASL, one should use ASL. Again, justifiably so.

After all, to discuss the language of ASL using English is inadequate. That is like trying to define Chinese, or Swahili, or even LSQ (langue des signes québécoise) in English terms… you cannot do it because cultural information gets lost, or misinterpreted. You have to use ASL to discuss ASL properly, without missing out on cultural nuances, just as you have to use English (whether it be Her Majesty’s, Canadian, Australian or American…and there are distinct differences between these four dialects of the same language) to discuss English properly. All these languages come with DISTINCT cultural and regional information that is important to know in order to fully understand what the person of that language is saying.

With that said, let’s get back to “fomenting dissent”. Definitions according to these online dictionaries:

a) FOMENT:
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=foment)

foment: (v.) agitate: try to stir up public opinion

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
to promote the growth or development of : rouse, incite

b) DISSENT:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
· protest: express opposition through action or words; “dissent to the laws of the country”
· protest: the act of protesting; a public (often organized) manifestation of dissent

Put together, “fomenting dissent” would mean that Carl was fomenting a rebellion. What is Carl, that instigating troublemaker, fomenting a rebellion against? A government? Is he committing sedition? Is he breaking a law? Is he fomenting an organized protest? None of the above.

Simply put, that vexing demagogue simply refuses to translate his ASL vlogs into English text. Flog him! Call on the horses to draw and quarter him! No, throw him into the dungeon and throw away the key!

The Welsh blogger demands that Carl provide access to ASL through English text because the former does not understand either BSL or ASL. He has even appealed to the owner of DeafRead to force Carl to “provide access” to his ASL vlogs. After all, most people in the world use English.

Excuse me while I open the windows in my house to get rid of the noxious fumes of superiority in the form of language hegemony!

While I understand MM’s frustration re: access, he does not understand a few things:

1. It is not a matter of transcription. This would imply that ASL is “a manual expression of English”. That is a fallacy. ASL is a language, DISTINCT from English. Therefore, transcription is an impossibility.

2. It’s not an access issue. It’s a language issue. To provide “access” would require a COMPLETE TRANSLATION of one language into another language, rather than a simple transcription of a spoken version of a language into a written one such as the English captioning on TV.

Please view Patti Durr’s excellent comment in Tayler Mayer’s Peripheral vision of the online community, which discusses language translation as opposed to transcription.

3) Forced translation into the majority language would result in the stifling of badly needed discussions of the language ASL, in ASL. There are so few ASL text in comparison to the sheer volume of English text available for perusal.. (Yes, there is such a thing as ASL text.) Cultural issues and topics have to be discussed in the language that culture is tied to, first and foremost.

Therefore, there is a real need for a safe space for minority languages/cultures, such as ASL, for one, in the midst of a world that is heavily focused on the medical/disability view, and the supremacy of English as a dominant language.

After watching Mike’s Bring Back the Light vlog, I had to share this story that popped into my mind two weeks ago. Bring your coffee mugs–and flashlights–and join me at my table! (I hope you enjoy my first attempt at story-telling.)

Comments, which include constructive criticisms are welcome. Destructive criticisms and personal attacks will not be published. Thank you for viewing my vlog!

FYI: Voice interpreters were indeed provided for the presentations which heavily emphasized bilingualism. It is my opinion that the information presented is quite relevant to people of varying backgrounds including hearing or deaf parents, Deaf people,and educators.

The brief summaries I gave of each topic presented barely mined the treasure trove of information I received.

My apologies for not providing a transcription of this vlog at the present time, and I hope I will be able to provide that at a future date. Thank you for your patience.

Comments, which include constructive criticisms are welcome. Destructive criticisms and personal attacks will not be published. Thank you for visiting my blog!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dd_p6tuGEQ&hl=en]

This vlog is an expression of thanks to everyone involved in the DBC Milwaukee convention: Jill and John Lestina, Patti Durr, other volunteers for the children’s program; Jack Barr of WAD: DBC Core members-both former and current; the 700 participants.

Upon viewing my vlog, I realized I had forgotten to thank the presenters who laboured in preparation to present excellent topics to all of us. The following presenters are: Dr. Barbara Kannapell, Dr. MJ Bienvenu, Bobbie Beth Scoggins, Dr. Genie Gertz, Dr. Patrick Boudreault (a fellow Canadian!), and Dr. Marlon Kuntze. MANY THANKS!!

My next vlog will discuss the presented topics which placed a heavy emphasis on bilingualism (ASL and English)

Comments are welcome. Destructive criticism as well as personal attacks will not be published. Thank you for visiting!