I know it might sound silly, but i don't know anything about hearing loss etc, so now there have said I've got mild-moderate hearing loss does this get classed has partiality deaf??? , I'm really sorry if it's a daft question
To be or not to be seen, appears to be your question. I don't envy the poster wondering what on earth his 'classification' is, just pick 'n mix your own, where a silly hat, it really doesn't matter, it won't address your loss of hearing. Searching for an ID suggests you have other issues, not just hearing loss. Perhaps get that seen to first? Not everyone needs to be social 24/7.
All is absolute confusion and awareness whatever you make it. There used to be a quite simple identification of hearing loss, if you CAN hear ANYTHING [with or without alleviation], then, you are NOT deaf, if you CANNOT hear anything at all with or without alleviation then you were deaf simples.
Didn't the DWP make a legal challenge to 'deaf' people who took their aids out and stated they were deaf, as attempting to gain welfare and concession support by fraud? insurance companies did too. Look at the problems of mask-wearing today and nobody believing you have a valid excuse.
Deaf were refused ID cards that identified them because nobody clarified what deaf meant, and the Deaf themselves felt it ID's them as disabled, then rights entered the fray and all was clear as mud because a lot of Deaf had some useful hearing, but changed the debate to lack of inclusion.
The issue is not what they can or cannot hear but if what they do hear can be effectively followed, however, the DWP said that 'moves outside clinical loss', because not everyone follows everything the same way hearing or not. This led to legal challenges where deaf lip-readers were also said to not be deaf at all by the DWP AND by BSL deaf areas too, who said that lip-reading and speech, was a clear indication you were not deaf. It descended into rank silliness.
The arguments seem to go on and on and on about it. 'Quality of life' entered the arena, but nobody could quantify it. Quality of deaf life revolves not on lack of inclusion but on ensuring their lifestyles are protected, that lifestyle seems EXclusive not INclusive.. Access is still primarily via 3rd parties so social inclusion is relative.
BSL people have it easy! 'I sign therefore I am obviously deaf', and the system accepts that, but, a number of them we would identify as severely hard of hearing, NOT profound deaf because 'profound' means total/extreme, it is an absolute, and their loss isn't. The HoH version tends to be shrugged off as 'hear when we want to..' because hearing loss varies considerably, and because those with it are unsure what they are supposed to able to hear.
Hearing loss isn't subject only to ears failing. It can be nerve induced, a mental health issue etc, it is incorrect to put it own to hearing loss alone.
Goalposts shifted, they were a culture, debate erased.
For them! I think personally HoH rolled over far too quickly in accepting that point which effectively shut them out and replaced any voice they had.
That's their problem, they need to speak up for themselves.
BSL is a visible disability, hearing loss isn't. In obtaining help and support it pays to take up sign language clearly, but is that fraud? Given it is not aligned with deaf culture or that area at all?
Who cares? Desperate people will take desperate means to get help. If you are struggling, all's fair.