I read an article that American Airlines marked a bag Deaf and Dumb, what do you think about it?

“The where f the bag was very upset, and now the employee who tagged it is going through sensitivity training.”
What does this sentence mean? I can’t make it out.

The sensitivity training is to say “hearing/speech impaired”. It’s not the “deaf” part that is bothersome (although that is a debate in the non hearing community) but the pejorative “dumb.

Although “dumb” used to mean someone who could not speak, it was also used to describe someone who is developmentally challenged. It’s not very nice. And it’s a lousy way to describe a customer.

@dxs . . . I believe she meant The owner of the bag . . .

Sorry for the typo. I’ll flag it and hopefully it will get fixed fast.

@zenvelo So you think it should be tagged alerting the driver the person does have a disability? Or, should it just simply say “contact by text.”

I don’t know in what context the worker used the word dumb, but dumb is always derogatory. It was wrong of the worker to label it that. Something like “doesn’t answer phone—text only” would’ve worked fine, right? Was there anything else the worker was trying to convey?

@dxs I don’t know if dumb was always derogatory. I don know how old the employee is that it might have been commonly used when he was younger possibly.

It seems logical that just putting text to contact should be enough, but as I mentioned in my original post, I tried many many times to tell delivery people, doctor’s offices, and other services which number to contact me on and they couldn’t get it right.

@JLeslie Interesting. I never knew there was a time when dumb wasn’t derogatory. Someone should definitely give him the memo, then.

@JLeslie Yes, I think they could have marked it with something a bit more sensitive.

I have no problem with DEAF. DUMB is not technically wrong either, although there was probably some better way to state it.

The question to me—was the employee following directions in the employee manual? It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that AA had that terminology in their manuals for 50 years or more and never changed it.

As for the person who said “dumb” is always derogatory – that’s simply wrong. Dumb has a negative connotation, of course, but has also meant “rendered speechless” for about a thousand years. “I was struck dumb when I say the arrow hit the knight” and similar older English phrases.

AA should have probably been smarter about it, but it’s not altogether wrong.

Definition of words evolve. Queer means offbeat, unusual, or to the more extreme, weird. That is how I use that word. If I comment on a work of art, and say,“Well, isn’t that queer?” That is what I mean. If the artist turns out to be homosexual, and takes offense, then I say the burden to better equip their own vocabulary is on them. If a definition is so far evolved that the word has an entirely new place in our language, then that’s a different matter.
I belive the passenger was likely miffed about the lost luggage, and saw this as an easy payback. If the employee’s use of the word was to indicate hearing impairment, then it can be derogatory if the hearing impaired person finds their own state of being offensive.

I’m surprised to see so many people say that “dumb” is always derogatory. Was the note supposed to say “Owner is deaf and without speech?”

Perhaps instead of sending the baggage handler to sensitivity training, they should have sent the management to English language training.

The Oxford English Dictionary gets around to a derogatory sense of the word “dumb” at item #7b. All of the prior meanings have to do with being unable or unwilling to speak.

The Oxford English Dictionary gets around to a derogatory sense of the word “dumb” at item #7b. All of the prior meanings have to do with being unable or unwilling to speak.

Weird. It’s also the sixth entry at Merriam Webster online.

Weird because in the US, I would estimate the word is used 99% of the time to mean “stupid”.

@jaytkay – the first 6 definitions in OED are just…. dumb.

At least dictionary.com lists “stupid” as the #1 definition for dumb. I think it’s too close to derogatory to be acceptable even if the term technically may mean something else. No, I wouldn’t get all up in arms about it if I were the owner, but it’s still not cool to be calling people those things.
Dictionary.com also says this:
Usage note:
Dumb in the sense “lacking the power of speech” is perceived as insulting when describing humans (but not animals), probably because dumb also means “stupid; dull-witted.” The noun dummy in the sense “person who lacks the power of speech” is also perceived as insulting, as are the terms deaf-and-dumb, deaf-mute, and mute. The adjective hearing-impaired is acceptable though not the term of choice, partly because it lacks directness. The preferred term is deaf, which makes no reference to an inability to speak or communicate; the capitalized Deaf signals membership in this community.

So I guess “deaf and dumb” is a saying. Didn’t know that, either.

Perhaps the person who wrote that is of the older generation and familiar with the term deaf and dumb, I wouldn’t immediately take it to be an insult.

I think a lot of Americans have no idea dumb means unable to speak, which helped cause the uproar. They thought the person was writing deaf and stupid, basically interpreting it as deaf people are stupid, which is basically an ignorant interpretation. However, I would assume people who are hearing impaired know the term and the history of its meaning, so if that community is upset about it, then obviously it is something that needs to be addressed. I do agree dumb at this point has become out of date, not PC, and since the word is now more commonly used to mean stupid, there obviously is a better choice of words.

@elbanditoroso Great point about the AA manual, now you have me wondering about that too.

@zenvelo I don’t think you are understanding my follow up question. Do you think it is necessary to write any explanation? Or, they should just write “text only” or something similar for communication? Should they still write can’t hear or speak? Hard of hearing and mute? Hearing impaired? Deaf and mute? Is writing anything specifically referring to the disability insensitive?

@JLeslie “I think a lot of Americans have no idea dumb means unable to speak”

That speak volumes…

@dxs Dictionary.com is a terrible dictionary. This is just one more example – it tends to be cited here on Fluther when people want to show that there is a dictionary that will back up a commonly-held belief about a word’s meaning, against a definition from an actual dictionary.

@dappled_leaves Meaning it isn’t used anymore? Is that what you meant by saying that speaks volumes?

How often is it pointed out someone is unable to speak, or anything similar? It is so rare in the first place to be spoken of. Maybe children still learn about Hellen Keller in school and it is brought up. Even growing up (I’m in my 40’s) when I was around people who were hearing impaired it almost never was pointed out to me that they didn’t speak, even if they didn’t. I was just told they use sign language or read lips, etc.

@dappled_leaves What about that entry makes it terrible? Don’t cultures define words? From what I heard, in India, it’s considered offensive to say “thank you” to your friend because they see it as thought you weren’t expecting them do so something good for you. So it’s a compliment to say “thank you” in some places, but offensive in others. Dumb may be like this. Perhaps in other cultures (or time periods), dumb doesn’t mean stupid. But In the USA, the culture to my knowledge is that dumb means stupid. If that’s the case, I guess the owner should consider other cultures before getting offended by the worker.

No one misunderstood what the movie title “Dumb and Dumber” meant.

I did grow up with its use meaning “unable to speak.” A kinder term is “mute.” “Mute” can imply, however, a temporary loss of speak.

I think stupid evolved from people being frustrated with those who cannot communicate easily. They thought the Polish were stupid because they didn’t learn English right away when they came to America and couldn’t communicate easily, but they weren’t stupid.

A dummy is a puppet that doesn’t speak for itself, so someone who isn’t thinking, or not thinking for themselves became a dummy, and so goes the evolution of the word I would think.

Just like mad was typically used to describe an animal out of control, like a mad dog, a crazy, angry dog. In England they seemed to develop the word mad to be synonomous with crazy, while in America we latched more onto the angry and use mad synonomously with angry. I don’t think one is more right than the other, but common usage is important for good communication. Plus, we don’t want to offend people of course. I am sure the person who wrote the tag on the luggage did not mean to offend anyone. To say they need “sensitivity training” is just code words used in the corporate world to CYA. He just needs to be told the current PC words.

“Owner is deaf and cannot speak either. Please text him.”

Just writing “deaf, please text” should be enough. Would you call someone who is deaf? Although, now using deaf is offensive to some people too. Nice short word when tagging luggage, but I think it would have to be “hearing impaired” to really be politically correct. I might be wrong.

edit: speech

There used to be a transcription service (I think it was free), but the person calling had to have the patience to wait while the transcriber called and transmitted the conversation. Problem was, most folks would refuse to talk to a transcriber because they didn’t want a “public” conversation.

I’d say it’s a fair bet that anyone from the airport would be willing to take the extra time to call through a transcription service anyway.

I live, function and thrive in a Deaf community as a person who identifies as culturally Deaf. No, I do not want to hear, and yes, I am deaf not hearing impaired. There are several things to reply to on this thread—

Deaf mute, along with deaf and dumb are received in the Deaf community the same way someone would receive the N word. It is that offensive, period.

Except people, as a society, respect the African American’s voice enough to not use the N word, while most people mostly don’t think much of the Deaf perspective and scoff, minimize and pooh-pooh us while throwing these terms around. Then are totally incredulous when we get mad. Oh, calm down, it’s just a term. If it’s just a term, then isn’t the N word just a term? No, it’s not just a term- it’s a loaded word. I deal with this often.

That’s how angry I get when I see those two terms. First. We are not mute. Most of us have some degree of speech use. Less than 1% of those with hearing loss have no vocal use—more people who can hear have no vocal use than those with a hearing loss. So, deaf-mute is very misleading and erroneous to begin with.

Second. Deaf and dumb. Hearing people automatically judge others on their intelligence by how they speak. That’s an oft-researched and oft-proven sociolinguistic trait, completely separate from how a person hears. So, because people with hearing loss have weird speech, people automatically assume they’re stupid and incapable. Nothing could be further than the truth- I have many Deaf friends with doctorates and am working towards mine at this moment. I know Deaf people who fly planes, work with the law enforcement, are firefighters, run for political office, who are doctors, dentists, computer programmers, financiers, car mechanics, contractors, business owners… who definitely are not dumb.

It doesn’t matter what the OED says. How people use the word on a daily basis is what goes through their minds, not the 7b definition in a dictionary.

Unfortunately, the continued use of deaf and dumb is a fast-forward, short cut term that runs through people’s minds and continuously reinforces the concept, which started with Aristotle actually, that “those that are deaf are incapable of thought or reason.”

Did you know that the reason Aristotle, St. Augustine, et.al, decided the deaf were dumb was because they believed that intelligence came from the gods/God through the ears. If you couldn’t hear God’s word, you were doomed to Hell. That makes the deaf-dumb concept quite archaic and backwards.

I would suggest that everyone acquaint themselves with the term: audism.

As for hearing impaired. Those that use HI are people who prefer to identify with the hearing community for various reasons. They might have lost their hearing later in life, might have enough hearing to function on a daily basis, or just might not want to identify with the Deaf community. HI is not an offensive term, but it is not a term the Deaf community uses for itself.

Now, if I tell you I am Deaf, a term that I clearly stated as my preferred term, I will be deeply offended and pissed if you decide my own chosen term for myself is not good enough and force “hearing impaired” on me. That becomes loaded—someone with privilege slapping their own words on me. When anyone tells you, “I am _____.” it is extremely disrespectful to bypass their own chosen term with one you think is better.

The airplane employee could’ve asked what to write on the tag, or simply “can’t receive calls, text only.” That focuses on the technology, not the person.

As for texting. Most of us do not hear on the phone, and many who can hear on the phone can’t hear with background noise. That ability just isn’t there. People wouldn’t ask someone in a wheelchair to walk to their gate, would they? So to communicate by phone, texting is the ONLY option, really. And a great equalizer, like Fluther is for me.

Here’s some more history—Deaf people used mobile devices and were texting starting in 1989—about the same time doctors got pagers and way before the general public learned about this nifty device.

The Deaf community is close knit and international. We just aren’t often listened to.

To add— to call deaf people ignorant for getting upset about the ‘deaf and dumb’ term is wrong. It is something that we live with almost everyday—so until you have to deal with something like that everyday, don’t call getting upset ignorant, silly or backwards.

This woman’s frustration most likely stems from the same place as mine does—frequency, redundancy, ubiquitousness… yes, the AA employees need sensitivity training.

I took a fall about 10 years ago and broke a small bone in one ear. Now I wear a hearing aid in that ear only. I consider myself “hearing impaired.”

@gailcalled Like I said, it’s not offensive for those who are late-deafened. I use hearing-impaired with respect for those who chose to identify themselves as hearing-impaired.

^^ Sometimes I am circumloquacious and say, “I have 70% hearing loss in one ear.” That also works. (Still got your gorilla suit?)

It is very valuable to have your insight, @linguaphile, because the majority of people have little-to-no exposure to the concepts and issues of deaf culture. Even for someone with 20+ years evaluating hearing, I rarely encounter people who are in the deaf culture.

To keep the conversation going; what is the difference between “hard of hearing” and “hearing impaired”? I know that some organizations and agencies prefer to use HoH, but no one ever explained to me the reason for it. Is “impaired” considered derogatory, as well? I usually describe hearing aids as “tools, like glasses, that correct for a sensory impairment”, since we don’t describe changes in vision as “vision loss”.

I’ve been told that some don’t even like the phrase “hearing loss” because you can’t lose something that you never had, or because again it comes across as such a negative – as if they should grieve for it. I try to avoid even using “normal” as a comparison when describing someone’s hearing acuity, but rather describe it in terms of which sounds – especially speech sounds – are audible to them and which are not.

When I diagnose a person for the first time with hearing deficits (is that an acceptable phrase?) and they ask, “Do I need hearing aids?”, or whenever someone complains about how Medicare and most other insurers won’t pay for hearing aids, I remind them that there are many people who live happy, productive lives without the ability to hear, which is why the devices are not deemed “medically necessary” by insurers.

Since the majority of my patients were able to hear much of their lives, it isn’t too hard for them to understand that amplification will benefit them, but if someone says to me that they don’t want to hear, I’m not about to argue with them – especially if they’ve given me a chance to demonstrate the devices to them so they can make an informed decision (and aren’t simply ruling the devices out based on financial or other concerns). But the hearing aid industry is becoming competitive and even in a medical practice there is administrative pressure to ‘sell’ – but I stand by my ethics and they have no argument against that.

@hearkat “I remind them that there are many people who live happy, productive lives without the ability to hear, which is why the devices are not deemed “medically necessary” by insurers.”

I can only imagine how this news is received by the person who wants their hearing restored. I fully recognize that this is the insurers’ attempt at providing context, not yours, but it sounds like a brutal misuse of political correctness to justify spending less on the patient.

@hearkat Good questions…

The problem with many terms is that they are imposed on the Deaf community with a disregard for the community’s viewpoint. It basically goes back to ownership—

It’s a multilayered situation—90–92% of deaf/hoh children are born to parents who hear, and when they learn they have a baby with a hearing loss, their first avenue, almost every time, is to go through the medical community. The medical community has always been looking for a cure, a way to eradicate hearing loss. Most people immediately agree with the medical community—hearing loss is bad. People who lost their hearing later in life are vocal, hard of hearing people who struggle and want to hear are vocal, hearing people who can’t imagine life any other way are vocal—and politicians, corporates and other doctors hear them. Hearing loss is bad.

BUT. That’s not true for all people with hearing loss. The communication barrier led to a natural separation that create a distinct (but not inferior) community, which developed its own culture. If you read Far from the Tree, there are quite a few groups of people (gay, little people, autism) who develop beautiful communities based on their own differences. There are around 250,000 ASL users in the United States that make up the signing community. For them, hearing loss is not a problem at all.

Unfortunately, profoundly deaf people who use sign language make up less than 10% of all people who have a hearing loss. The 90% that doesn’t use sign language is more vocal and align with society’s viewpoint more easily.

Around the late 60’s, someone came up with the term ‘hearing impaired’ and people collectively agreed it was a better term than ‘deaf,’ but whoa… they decided everyone with a hearing loss, regardless of degree or cultural affiliation was hearing impaired. It was decided for the Deaf community, it was something that was imposed, not something the community chose for itself.

Now, for many of the people in the 90%, the term ‘hearing impaired’ fits them—they identify as hearing people and feel their hearing loss IS an impairment. I do get that and respect that, but also want to be respected for identifying as Deaf.

Now HOH. That becomes the gray area- many older people are hard of hearing, technically, according to their audiogram. But they still identify as hearing. There are people who grew up HOH, and for the same reason Deaf people identify as Deaf, they identify as HOH. It’s their identity. I’ve heard the same is true for people who were born blind—they don’t identify as vision-impaired, but blind.

If people are willing to be flexible with gender differences, then I think they can learn to be flexible with other identity differences.

You are right, @hearkat, there are people who do not like the term ‘hearing loss.’ I live around quite a few. I live around a small community who wants to go as far as to eliminate the term Deaf and in their lingo, they have replaced ‘deaf’ with Sumain. They are activists who fight everyday against hearing privilege—I understand their viewpoint, but I’m the sort that wants to tell and explain, so I’m very, very tame compared to them. In everyday company, I do not use ‘hearing loss’ but for the sake of explanation and differentiation, such as on this site, I will use the term.

Glad to have this discussion.

@linguaphile Thanks for your input!

My grandfather was somewhat hard of hearing, that is what my dad called it. We made sure we were in front of him when we spoke to him and spoke slightly louder. He could hear, just not at “nornal” levels, and was pretty good at reading lips. His speech was extremely good, I think he had more hearing ability when he was younger, and then lost more as he got older.

One of my grandmothers close girlfriends had twin granddaughters who were deaf, although, they did wear hearing aids, they still did not hear well. They used sign language and were part of the deaf community. They did not speak well at all, but would sometimes try to articulate some words. My sister and I played with them like any other friends, they simply could not hear like us, it was never a thing when we were young. We sometimes had trouble communicating with them, but between the two of them they would help each other and of course they were extremely close being twins and deaf.

I was taught deaf and dumb means cannot hear and cannot speak. It was never presented to me that deaf and dumb means deaf and stupid. I never assume someone who is deaf is also not able to speak. In fact, I always assumed it is very rare for someone to actually not be able to speak whether or deaf or not, but I did not know the statistics. I mentioned Hellen Keller above, and when I learned about her, it was taught to me like she was a rare girl to have both disabilities. I don’t even like to use the term disability. I am not trying to justify using dumb, as I said I never hear the term anymore and I would say it isn’t PC in this context anymore.

Anyway, it surprises me that in your answer you equate dumb with stupid and no mention of dumb in the past being used to mean mute or unable to speak. You seem to be saying your receive dumb as only meaning stupid also?

As far as which term you prefer, I like to use whatever is the preferred term of the person I am speaking to. With you I would use deaf, but if another friend preferred hearing impaired I would use that with them. However, keep in mind I cannot predict which term will be preferred by an individudal, so all I can do is ask. I would hope you don’t get bent out of shape if someone uses one of the terms besides deaf? Although, I do think you should let people know which you prefer. I don’t think we can expect an airline to ask, however I do think we can expect them to simply write “please text only, not able to take voice calls” or something similar.

@JLeslie I appreciate your thoughts! It’s fun to learn you grew up with Deaf friends. Was this in Tennessee?

In response, I am very aware of the use of dumb, as unable to speak, in contexts such as ‘struck dumb.’ The Deaf community, back in the 1800’s actually called themselves deaf and dumb, with many of the school sports programs having D&D on their jerseys. That was then, this is now.

Yes, in general conversation, of course saying “struck dumb” is acceptable. Or even “Dumb Friends League” for animal rescue. But as a phrase ‘deaf and dumb,’ no, because it continues to perpetuate a stereotype.

The problem is most people automatically assume deaf people are unable to think intelligently and it affects job opportunities and daily experiences. Case in point—someone at the federal level did a research on the distribution of all disabled government employees across the supervisory and pay scales. Out of all possible disabled employees in every possible federal job, deaf and hard of hearing employees came in, second to last by a significant gap from third to last for pay and supervisory duties, barely ahead of cognitively delayed employees. That study shows that, overall, people are more willing to work with a quadriplegic over a deaf person. (Not that there’s anything wrong with quadriplegics…)

And the federal government is pretty educated when it comes to hiring disabled people. The general population isn’t. Because of the perception that deaf people are slow, uneducable, etc… many deaf and hard of hearing people live with socio-economic status and conditions below those of Native American on the reservations. Saying ‘deaf and dumb’ to educated people like you probably automatically means ‘unable to speak,’ but for most people, that isn’t the case.

This perception is compounded by the fact people also equate good speech articulation with intelligence. I have two friends who can hear, but are severe stutterers—we actually have quite much in common as far as how people make assumptions about our intelligence.

Even living with all that, the Deaf community fiercely values itself, similar to how the Native American and GLBTQ communities value themselves. We are fighting eradication everyday and anything that perpetuates stereotypes, such as ‘deaf and dumb,’ becomes a point of contention.
—-
As for my tolerance level, honestly… it’s pretty high. As an example, I could cut and paste some posts from my FB friends—but I’m afraid to scare people off. I give the benefit of the doubt most of the time, tend not to bark or bite when offended, and most likely you’ll find me happy to explain—I’m a teacher after all. I do sigh and move on from many incidents. But, after I’ve asked someone to call me Deaf and they ignore my wishes, minimize my experience, or tell me I’m wrong, that invites a completely different response. For this thread, I chose to be emphatic to emphasize the seriousness of what I was saying.

Hope that answers your questions. :-D

Link to someone else (not me) and her sharing her perspective on this topic.

I recently used the word dumbfounded and it made me think of this Q. Do young people not know what that means also? Do they think it implies stupidity?

@JLeslie I haven’t looked it up yet. I think dumbfounded means you’re so amazed at something you don’t do or say anything; you just stand there, dumb.

Right. Amazed, awestruck, or even witnessing something so ridiculous you don’t know what to say.

“Dumbfounded” and “awestruck” are not synonymous.

I know they are not the same. I am saying when someone is in a state of shock or awestruck they might find themselves dumbfounded. Without words.

AH. New situation. I just went to a doctor’s appointment recently and on the intake form it asked if I have any “learning barriers” that would prevent my understanding my medical care. I checked NO.

Two weeks later, I went back for a follow up… and lo and behold, what’s on my form, put there without my consent or involvement? “Hearing Loss Learning Barrier.” So my hearing loss prevents me from learning. Here we go again.

This could be worded much, much better… communication barrier, access barrier…

@linguaphile: How did you address this with the nurse or doctor?

I havent, yet. Still trying to decide what to do.

I’d suggest you write a letter addressed to the Physician and another to the Practice Manager, and mark them “Confidential”. They need to be educated, and the best way to do that is in writing. You could suggest that they change the phrasing to: “Please list any accommodations you require, such as mobility (e.g. if you use a wheelchair or a walker), or communications (e.g. if you need an interpreter), so that we can make arrangements in preparation for your appointment.” After all, people who can’t fluently communicate in English don’t necessarily have a learning problem. You might express in the note that your disappointment in their use of such phrasing has you frustrated to the point that you’re considering writing an online review and letters to the local papers, etc. That tends to get prompt responses.

Part of the problem is with the trying to find phrasing that is respectful of the differences. Historically, there have always been negative connotations to the descriptors. Learning Disabilities, Cognitive Impairments, Hearing Loss, etc. are the upgraded labels from retarded, lame, crippled, deaf and dumb, etc. Schools and other facilities aren’t intending to offend, but we do need to note in the records if there is something about that individual that requires us to modify our approach to care and communication.

Another part of the problem is the unpredictability of how the person and those accompanying them want the issue addressed. Some have a very matter-of-fact attitude and I have people pull off wigs and prostheses without warning. But on the other hand, some people get offended, even though it is relevant to their care. It’s a challenge when asking case history if a child has any special needs while trying not to say something that they could possible perceive as offensive. Sometimes a patient has an appearance that leads me to suspect that they have condition like Down’s Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy, but if it’s not written on the history form how do I clarify that? I can’t just assume. I’ve had people come in for balance issues and I notice an asymmetry in their eyes or a limp in their gait, but again, if nothing’s on the paperwork they gave us, how do I bring it up? It’s a fine line to tread, for sure.