Perhaps post COVID, the realisation all we did before was pointless and not helping the deaf or anyone else with hearing loss?
So many pointless campaigns emerged that were/are based on hysterics, emotion and in defiance of fact, or truth.
We demanded clear masks for others (But not us), insistence on 'all deaf lip-read', which was also untrue, (And will revert again afterwards to 'all deaf sign' etc), even claims deaf were denied COVID signed access when the signed visible proof was on the TV screens twice daily, and online 24/7.
Of course, the deaf activist, ever struggling to rally around any cause in a stormy teacup, were not going to let proof or fact, spoil a great campaign, and started challenging the sign used, and the grammar used by their own interpreters, even claimed most deaf were not online. They said captioning/subtitling was no use either, because the deaf struggled to read.
This, of course, is not our experience is it?
Not content with that, refused to take their own dedicated and freely subsidised BSL televised media and charities to task, for sitting on their behinds, even ignoring their own signing support for (quite rightly), refusing to turn up face to face not wearing a mask, just another ridiculous demand these people started making.
Endless links/blogs etc BY some deaf areas online to explain in signed detail were just blanked as the activists continued to insist there was none for the deaf. Tech apps like speech to text weren't good enough either, it is not clear what the demand actually is, but the text is an attack on the sign too of course. Leading hearing loss charities joined in the reluctance to inform and blamed hearing mainstream for access they had ignored too, despite their largest one deciding deaf care was too much of an expense and bother to continue with, because nobody knows what that is supposed to be.
They too blanked updates and refused links proving the case. Selective listening and selective deafness too. They really were only 'deaf when they wanted to be.' When taken to task switched to 'Deaf don't want English or to use text technology, they have own grammar and sign and...', you get the gist, any positive, they can find 20 negatives to 'prove' that black is white, or indeed any colour they choose. There was hostility to further education claiming (Quite wrongly), deaf people had no access to literacy lessons, but when sent links of where they were or offered support to demand it, then claimed it was an attack on BSL and its grammar.
It was pointed out BSL and its grammar was/is still an untested tuitional format, had no curriculum, and had no trained educational staff, to make it educationally happen, it ignored the state or parental options too, just sign language 'lessons' that actively discouraged speech use in case it 'offended' deaf people, however it failed to respond when it was pointed out that lip-reading access campaigns would never be viable if people didn't talk, and clear or no masks wouldn't help many sign reliant deaf, there was nil 'demand' for clear SPEAKING either, so all is clear as mud.
There were claims BSL is a real source of learning for the deaf via enabling bilingualism, (to enable English literacy), but then that got opposition too, as they insisted they had a right to sole BSL use, and deaf who acquired sign use then tended never to improve that English ability or use it to access more literacy either. The sign became an end in itself, so the current basis of deaf learning is unable to enable deaf inclusion, the deaf wouldn't acquire the 'tools' to do it, it relied on all hearing signing or all deaf with a translator and some sort of 'back to the future' system of deaf schools again which is non-viable.
Not just non-viable but, unwanted by areas of deaf because they abused deaf people. Now they say teaching deaf English is abuse too. The lip-reading issue is still contentional there is never any detail of its use or effectiveness with deaf signers. Indeed lip-reading par se is suspected of massive issues with its classwork and nil proof any adult deaf ever attending such a class. Either they were all excellent lip-readers already, or as suspected, had chosen sign instead. If they are e.g. excellent lip-readers then why the objection to its tuition in deaf education?
Of course, that is oralism isn't it, something else they don't like. Poor signers don't attend better BSL skill classes either, apparently, they are all excellent signers (which isn't true either). Of course, the activists came out with suggesting literacy lessons for deaf struggling to follow is patronising and an attack on deaf culture and its people as well. People deaf 50 years were told they really weren't unless they attended a deaf school, which they also claimed didn't actually work for them, so why defend them? They are well out of it on that basis. They are using a system that is 60 years old, unwanted, opposed, and no longer exists.
If COVID has done anything it has exposed the myths, lies, confusion that has come out via 'Deaf Awareness', and the distortion of truth in pursuit of a system as yet undefined and unable to operate, one that confines deaf people more and makes them more reliant on support than they are now. Mitigated as a right.
The UK will never adopt another 'Gallaudet' here, if that is the aim, we learnt the lessons from the failure of the USA version where students ran riot, vandalism and deaf bullying was a norm and teaching staff running scared of witchhunts by misguided ASL promotors, even the hard of hearing students ran the gauntlet. There seems to be a lesson here in not encouraging all deaf together this way? It gives these activists a breeding ground for dissent which they obviously control. Deaf have never been so misinformed.
The only upside is these dodos are getting fewer and fewer, but the fact remains they still have too many listening to them, including politicians and supportive charities (for obvious reasons, it's their livelihood). Who knows? perhaps the Emporer IS wearing clothes?