All this 'hate' about CI's and the deaf that have them is not good an image for the sign user, or for its perceived culture. It's barely a step apart from the 'deaf wanabee' views of old.
It's hate messenging passed off as 'fact'. We know CI's do not restore perfect hearing it's old news, but advances are coming on a regular basis. We should be happy for those deaf who now have some semblence of a world outside their silent own, and, the opportunities CI's will help them to achieve, including the deaf child able to advance far quicker than just left with poor and random sign educational tuition that isn't helping deaf much either.
In all this 'Audism' nonsense and bile, fact is in the mind of the writer more than anything. As a blog to encourage unity, an absolute non-event, irrrelvance, and an annoyance. Notwithstanding, a complete side-lining of parental input and view and an assault on choice.
Omissions that born deaf adults have taken up CI's too are too inconvenient for them to include also are damning. Even 80yr old born deaf taking them in the USA. It is suggested near 60% young deaf now have them. There is no proof they withdraw from the 'community' either, or, that this community objects to them. The danger of 'purism' is it becomes divisionist, and our deaf are too ostracised now.
Whilst the poster rants at CI's, a far different scenario is more a threat to such people, that of increasing success in mapping the genome sequences and identifying traits and issues that disable or kill. By far this area offers an opportunity to prevent deaf being born via identitifcation of deafness genes, but, without re-sequencing options. Choice is then simple no baby or a deaf one.
It should be pointed out the USA is the leader in such choice taking and already has prevented deaf baby births. Deaf women have prevented disability births by choice. Recently in china it is alleged gene splicing to remove deafness has already taken place.
Parents would want same choice, world-wide it affects far more than deafness. The reality is that IF a parent has a viable choice for a deaf/disabled child (they don't at present and that's the issue), or, one with neither issue they will take the latter painful as it is to those for whom choice comes far too late.
CI's are the last of your audism trouble. It's not audist to offer the deaf alleviation from silence, its a gift. And, they are still deaf without them. So what's the beef? they don't 'look deaf'? This is audism in reverse, deafism.