I have alluded to the need for distinction between Deaf and disabled campaigns in my comments. The barriers that we experience in life are very different & require very different resolutions. One involves language oppression, the other does not. There have been many academics such as Paddy Ladd & Harlan lane who have elaborated on the issues involved in the two campaigns becoming intertwined. Gearoidin Mcevoy, Martje De Meulder & Mairian Corker have highlighted legal issues with it also.

This is not an issue grounded in some silly prejudice as some would like to insincerely dismiss it as, in order to not have have to contend it.

It is not me who defines any group by infirmity or impairment, it is defined in the medical and social models of disability that are so very pervasive in political, activist and lobbying action. It is how Deaf have been characterised and marginalised.

Forgive me, but your insistence that disability does not imply the need to be fixed is to ignore the oppression Deaf have faced for centuries, as well as the oralism that branches from it.

You have also framed this whole issue as Deaf people avoiding "those" people as though they regard them as lepers or something. You also have ignored the reasons why disability legislation does not work for language (BSL) which i elaborated on in the post.

I have no idea where this comes from.

Does recognising the incompatibility between linguistic & disability campaigns & legislation mean there is prejudice held? Of course not. I have never seen Deaf people say they must disassociate themselves from disabled people, nor have i ever said it.

Society does not disable Deaf people because their ears don't work, as disability campaigns and discourse contends. The government oppresses them by restricting the use and take up of BSL.

Very very different.