It’s a common misconception and often considered insulting when people assume that those who don’t see or hear as they do want or need to be “fixed.” Among those who see and hear differently are distinct cultural groups with self identity. The concept that we would want to reduce the number of people who hear or see differently to “zero” is in that context- essentially no different than a billboard saying that it can “cure” a child of their ethnicity so they can avoid discrimination and be more like “the average” and advocating reducing the number of that group to zero.
If we stop and think about it- the very idea that a person would say they don’t want a “blind child” may seem well meaning- sight certainly has its advantages- but the implication there is that having reduced or no sight makes that person lesser or worthy of pity versus them just being different. The sentiment isn’t universal of course, few are, but it is something to be mindful of when discussing such topics.
It’s a disability. If someone is born blind that’s a birth defect and a genetic disorder. It’s not just “different” it’s actively and objectively worse. We have a word for someone with a disability that cannot accept that their disability is a disability. It’s called anosognosia, a mental disorder.
The loss or diminishment of an entire sense wouldn’t be that much different than say, the people who can’t feel pain. It’s an active objective worsening of a persons life and ability to function not even “in a society” but as an organism.
I am not and was not born without total use of vision or hearing so it’s not for me to say. All I can do is try to listen and respect the opinions of those who have the lived experience.
I would certainly argue that having less than or a lack of a given sense being objectively worse is a loaded statement that if nothing else is not universal and matters subjectively to the individual and not objectively. In hypothetical- a human who’s eyes saw into the UV spectrum or IR would have different advantages but would also see a completely different world than most people right?
So if they developed a way to “fix” my born inability to see various types of radiation and wavelengths of light- I don’t care that it could have many advantages- I wouldn’t want it. Many people wouldn’t. Asides questions of invasiveness there is the simple fact that I like the way I see the world. I have no desire to fundamentally alter my visual perception even if someone had that ability and told me how much…
.. of an advantage it was. In a less hypothetical- most women see more colors than men. The ability to see reds- a primary color and thusly also any other colors with red in them- is carried on the X chromosome. Having a double x, women generally see more color than men because they have twice the chance to inherit red seeing genes. Some people have a condition in which they can see FAR more color than others. In theory this is “objectively better” if we take a stance more is better- and thusly are we who see less color disabled or disadvantaged? Are we mentally I’ll because we live our lives not aware or feeling like we are disabled?
Some people hear better, some have more ability to taste different things. Some people have the ability to smell things others can’t- one such ability is to smell ants- supposedly they have a distinct smell- but not everyone or most people can smell them. Some people are double jointed etc etc. not having the same abilities as another person doesn’t make a person disabled by default. My natural ability towards basketball is less than Michael Jordan’s and yet I wouldn’t call that a disability even if it has certainly made my life more difficult to not be one of the all time earning sports celebrities.
Evolution doesn’t support the theory. The first human ancestors who lost their gills or had slower metabolism might seem disabled by their peers but they ended up as creatures that go to the moon and horseshoe crabs don’t build rockets so long term- who would be right there? Speaking of organisms like horseshoe crabs and such- some organisms have underwent relatively subtle changes in millions of years- because evolution isn’t some process of “upgrades” but a process of survival and efficiency.
Who am I to say what may come down the road? We have so many examples of things such as non nuerotypical cognition that CAN be disabling or come with disadvantages, but are also things many who have these conditions celebrate about themselves and don’t wish to be “cured” because they see themselves as different, not disabled. Objectively if they are functioning in society and able to live the life they want as well as anyone else on the whole, how can we say a person is disabled?
At the end of the day, attitudes towards things like being non nuerotypical, being less sighted or hearing, being gay- they’ve been changing academically and socially. It was relatively recently that homosexuality and trans identities were taken off the list of “mental illnesses.”
At one point society was very keen to “cure” people of their “disability” and refused to accept when people from those groups told us that they liked how they were. How can we believe the mentally I’ll on such matters right? Their deviation from our “norm” puts them at a disadvantage socially and prevents the traditional imperative of mating and reproduction- an organism without those things is surely a broken thing needing to be fixed right? Except no. We don’t need to “fix” gay people, or if hope in 2022 everyone could agree on that. It turns out they are fine that their lives experiences will inherently differ from those of the self proclaimed “norm.”
And that’s the crux of the issue. When we judge such things we are judging them by our standards and lived experiences. The idea of living without sight or hearing would seem like a prison to most people who have lived a good portion of life with those senses. It would seem intuitive that anyone would want to see or hear and that life becomes much easier or simpler to navigate with these extra senses and anyone would want that. Except people don’t. We know it as a fact, and not just people saying they don’t. We have the ability to enhance the hearing or vision of many who lack it or have less of it- and of those people who elect for those changes, we know that there are those who opt to have the abilities removed permanently or choose to turn them off where able except in specific circumstances. Our world is loud and chaotic. Even those of us used to experiencing that find ourselves sometimes overwhelmed. Am I saying it is better not to hear or see that? No. Not for everyone.
It’s nice that we can offer the option to people to have the experience of sight or sound or other things if they want it. It’s problematic to assume that a person is lesser or disabled because they are of different abilities or perception. As I said at the open, I have excellent vision and decent hearing. I don’t get to define the issue of not and I do not have the lived experience to nor does the lived experience of a single person or sub group get to define the subjective reality of everyone we can group with them.
It is a simple fact that there are large communities in the less sighted demographic or less hearing who do not consider themselves lacking for the way the are and take offense to the idea, largely perpetuated by those with greater abilities in those senses, that they need “fixed” or should be “fixed.” It’s up to an individual to decide if they wish to respect others or force their own views on to the world. Having heard their side of the story I choose respect.
If we stop and think about it- the very idea that a person would say they don’t want a “blind child” may seem well meaning- sight certainly has its advantages- but the implication there is that having reduced or no sight makes that person lesser or worthy of pity versus them just being different. The sentiment isn’t universal of course, few are, but it is something to be mindful of when discussing such topics.
The loss or diminishment of an entire sense wouldn’t be that much different than say, the people who can’t feel pain. It’s an active objective worsening of a persons life and ability to function not even “in a society” but as an organism.
I would certainly argue that having less than or a lack of a given sense being objectively worse is a loaded statement that if nothing else is not universal and matters subjectively to the individual and not objectively. In hypothetical- a human who’s eyes saw into the UV spectrum or IR would have different advantages but would also see a completely different world than most people right?
So if they developed a way to “fix” my born inability to see various types of radiation and wavelengths of light- I don’t care that it could have many advantages- I wouldn’t want it. Many people wouldn’t. Asides questions of invasiveness there is the simple fact that I like the way I see the world. I have no desire to fundamentally alter my visual perception even if someone had that ability and told me how much…
Who am I to say what may come down the road? We have so many examples of things such as non nuerotypical cognition that CAN be disabling or come with disadvantages, but are also things many who have these conditions celebrate about themselves and don’t wish to be “cured” because they see themselves as different, not disabled. Objectively if they are functioning in society and able to live the life they want as well as anyone else on the whole, how can we say a person is disabled?
At one point society was very keen to “cure” people of their “disability” and refused to accept when people from those groups told us that they liked how they were. How can we believe the mentally I’ll on such matters right? Their deviation from our “norm” puts them at a disadvantage socially and prevents the traditional imperative of mating and reproduction- an organism without those things is surely a broken thing needing to be fixed right? Except no. We don’t need to “fix” gay people, or if hope in 2022 everyone could agree on that. It turns out they are fine that their lives experiences will inherently differ from those of the self proclaimed “norm.”
It is a simple fact that there are large communities in the less sighted demographic or less hearing who do not consider themselves lacking for the way the are and take offense to the idea, largely perpetuated by those with greater abilities in those senses, that they need “fixed” or should be “fixed.” It’s up to an individual to decide if they wish to respect others or force their own views on to the world. Having heard their side of the story I choose respect.