I love the idea of changing the sign for Deaf. As an autistic person who lives much of my life online, *talking* for me is more often done with typed words. There should be no privileging for the idea that hearing people *can* talk; why is talking any more important than any other form of communication? Cheynna, I particularly appreciate your suggestion of the BSL sign for "3D"; I think it would be perfect.
One thing another deaf RU-vidr mentioned that you should say “I do not hear” instead of “I can’t hear”. Because as soon as you say that, it separates you from others¿ something like that. His name is Cole I believe
I love this! I agree! I was so happy when my university changed the studies of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Studies to not include the word “disabled”, so this change in the sign for “Deaf” would make me happy too. I mean maybe there’s something I’m missing but the sign points to the ear and mouth despite how ASL is a visual language, not a language that needs hearing. I hope this catches on.
Brilliant. I wish something could be done to officially change the sign language for "deaf" so that deaf people will not be seen as disabled, helpless people because they are not. You have my support. ♡♡♡
Sign language should be just one and universal. And not based on a spoken language at all. Idk who invented it, but definitely wasn't a deaf person. By doing that, people would be more motivated to learn it.
Why is this the most liked comment? She's making a serious comment and all you have to talk about is her looks? This is an I nappropriate comment you should not be objectifying women. If you don't know what she's saying then don't comment
@@0whitestone Gabriel Babbitt I did two things and objectifying her was neither of those two. I made a fool of myself and complimented her. That would be all. I hope you somehow managed to make it through the day despite the fact some people some day decided to press a thumb up on a foolish attempt for a compliment. I will comment as I decide. Your fascist opinion is appreciated and valued. As not worthy that is. Good day to you.
Okay, I have a few objections. First, the word for deaf is very explanatory and so people using another sign language or an oral speaker would be able to understand it, which is quite useful. I don't that the word 'deaf' is really the problem, though. I must admit that I don't know much about how deaf people view it in general. But people try to change words in oral languages all the time, and I find it very annoying. The word itself is quite self explanatory: you can't hear, which is true for the entire deaf community and so describes them fairly accurately. True, it focuses more on the negative meaning rather than the positives 'can't hear' versus 'can sign' or something, but it does express a true fact. Changing the word to show it more as a positive won't change anything. People will still think of being deaf as a bad thing and a disability. So the words aren't the problem; it is the attitude people have towards the concept that the word describes that is the problem. Also, changing a word, I believe is never a good thing (although it _can_ be a neutral thing, if it happens naturally. It forces people to express something in a way that they are not used to. It's like forcing people to not speak their own ancestral language. Most people would say that that is a bad thing. Changing speech patterns in other ways is similar, on a smaller scale. It would make people upset at the change and cause a small amount of division of society. I myself am _extremely_ stubborn in my speech, because I believe that we have the right to speak the languages that we want to speak, and speaking differently than I do already would mean that I am speaking a slightly different language, not the language that I know and that I am connected with. The reason why I am so connected with my English ? Because someone first language is a language of their heart, someone's second language is a language of their mind. Nelson Mandela once said something of this effect: 'If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart'. Changing words, like I said before, is a much smaller scale version of this, but I believe that it still holds up.
King Keegster I see your point King. Changing words is not efficient. Forcing people to speak/communicate in a way that they didn’t already perceive as natural is in some sense dehumanizing. But I would like for you to hear my view. I am not Deaf. But I would say that the sign is a bit of a problem. We have to be careful when we say Deaf versus deaf. They are as different as black and Black, white and White. Deaf refers to the deaf community. Not everyone in the deaf community is unable to hear. It is those who are deaf cultured who are considered part of the community. (Ex. The hearing children of deaf parents..if they were raised by them.. would be considered Deaf). If you wanted to say that the sign for deaf refers to deaf people/people with a hearing loss, then the sign for deaf is a little more accurate. But even then, there is a problem. Cheyenna describes the sign as “can’t hear, can’t speak.” This is still problematic because there are deaf people who can speak and people who have learned to talk. I also wanted to shed light on how often words already change in ASL. Many signs have experienced changes such as the signs for doctor, marriage, date etc... so it’s really not an uncommon thing, or something that’s particularly hard to adapt to. People will continue to use whichever word they want to use. There’s nothing to force anyone. There are various words that have several accepted signs. Lastly, I think that you’re right, about attitude being the true underlying issue here. But how can we begin to change the attitude to a more positive one? I think changing the sign for deaf would be a step in the right direction. The oppressors will give the oppressed a new name to exacerbate their differences and illuminate their negative qualities to put them down. If the sign were to be changed within the interest of deaf people, then they would have control of their own narrative, their own story. Instead of us telling them what they are, they should be able to define it themselves. The sign for deaf should in someway celebrate Deafness rather than reiterate the difference. I don’t think it should be related to signing specifically since that is also a little problematic. But the “can’t speak” portion should definitely be eliminated because it is not fact.
I understand that you don't like the sign "deaf", since you can speak. I agree with you. But there is a problem with the signs that you have shown : they are not well for deaf persons who can't sign. Excuse me if other persons already said that, since I'm French and don't really understand what they wrote. Also, excuse me, please, for my bad language.
Check out on Matthew Moore who I went to RIT/NTID. He has good sign on Deaf. Check out on his Facebook called Cheers & Jeers with Matthew S Moore on the subject of “Deaf” meaning we are the People of the eye 👁!
I don't see the point. I think the sign "deaf" represents the reality of deaf people, and how hearing people see them: you can't hear so probably you can't talk because you don't hear them. I don't see it as a totally negative point. I'll give you a pair of examples of signs in my country (Spain) that has a negative connotation (or as we say, these are ugly signs): 1. There was a sign for "period" (when women has the period each month), which was the same as "crazy". It was offensive for women to be called "crazy" when they had the period. So they changed for "month +++++", which represents "each month". 2. The sign of "disability" in Spain is like "cutting your hands". Do you believe this is an appropriate sign for disabled people? And it hasn't changed. It could be represented as "deaf people wouldn't communicate if they don't have hands", but this sign is for every disability. So it's still uncomfortable for me to use this sign. What I want to say is that the sign "deaf" could slightly change so the mouth is not included. Not because it has a negative connotation, because deaf people can't hear, and some talk neither (because they haven't been taught). I won't say if you should change an ASL sign because it's not the language I use, and in my humble opinion, I understand your suggestion, but I don't think this sign could be changed as "3D" or "world" because of the deaf people's viewpoint of the world.
Felipe Nachmanowicz well it was a mixture of home signs and French sign language I don't remember much bit I encourage you to do more research. Also look up Galluadete
Hard to say but I think I've heard that signed langauges are deemed to have been around for as long as spoken languages. Since we don't have concrete evidence (as far as I know) exactly when complex human languages started forming in the first place, we might never know.
will 3 D do (3 fingers and the Letter D using both hands ) ? l do feel we should be the same all over the world in Sign Language so there is No Confusion .
That second sign is used by Indian/Pakistani people as "what the fuck". Like if someone does something so stupid, you can't even ask why, you just have to throw your hand up.
Make sure you turn on the Closed Captions by clicking the CC button on the bottom right of the video window. This video is in American Sign Language and there is no sound track.
I am not trying to demean you, if YOU could hear, you'd realize that spoken language does not always NEED a visual element to it. Feeling, intent, emotion and more is communicated in words through volume and pitch, etc. If you could hear, you wouldn't need your eyes to understand a person speaking may be angry or hurt. You'd hear it in their voice. As someone who DOES hear, the phrase "I am going to the store" conjures up an image in my head of someone possibly going to a Walmart, or another supermarket. I can imagine them walking down the aisles. Their words provided NO imagery, but that wasn't necessary. I provided my own. Deaf people think hearing people can't see, sense, feel, taste, something like rain, love, movement, or emotions because they're too busy *JUST* hearing. I got news for you, if you could hear, you'd know better. We CAN add facial expression and body language to words - just like YOU do. Being able to hear doesn't render us robots. Also, google the definition of inflection. A lot IS conveyed in spoken language. It is NOT linear the way you think it is. But because you are deaf, you do not realize this and perhaps never will. That is not to say that you are dumb, or your deaf culture is wrong. Simply put, you don't completely know what you are talking about.
![[ASL] Cheyenna Clearbrook - Why We Should Change The Sign For 'Deaf'](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
