Juliet England: Do you love the term ‘deafie’?

I’ve been called many things in my time, not all of them complimentary. One nickname, Widget, stuck when I worked on a local paper in the Early Middle Ages (OK, the early middle 1990s.)

It was harmless and affectionate enough, although the reason for being called it is too rude to detail here.

I still remember being called ‘you bloody deaf mute’ in the school library at some point in my teens, muttered by a classmate when I asked her to repeat the name of an author we’d both read and which I’d presumably forgotten. That memory still stings after some three and a half decades.

But what to make of names like ‘deafie’ or ‘cloth ears’? I regularly use both when penning my diary columns for this very website. And I must admit I never thought that much of doing so. I always assumed the terms would be accepted in the spirit in which they were intended, i.e. affectionately.

Equally, I include myself in the description, and am certainly not singling out individual members of our community for mockery. It could well be different if a hearing person were using the expressions. I’ve always felt that having a hearing loss myself gives me a right to describe myself in such terms, and that a hearing person may not necessarily have that right.

Certainly, ‘deafie’ feels gentler than ‘deafo’, which would definitely make my hackles rise, especially in the wrong context.

Intriguingly, I’m not even entirely sure why I use these terms and not the basic descriptive ones. I do also use them in speech with others, especially hearing people, although I would never introduce myself as such, just as being deaf. It could be a way of subconsciously deflecting embarrassment, of getting there first before anyone else does with something that’s potentially negative.

Equally, it could be down to a reluctance to describe myself as ‘deaf’ when I don’t have a hearing loss in the same way a profoundly deaf person does. Sometimes I almost feel a fraudster, an infiltrator who’s not really a member of the community.

But is it wrong to label members of our community in this way? After all, fascinatingly, I understand that among the blind fraternity, a group about which I know less than zilch, they often blithely call each other ‘blindies’ or ‘blinkies’, without, er, blinking. Who knew? And is ‘deafie’ any different?

There’s similar debate around language in the LGBTQ community, where, for example, ‘queer’ is still considered a slur in some quarters, despite it being incorporated into the commonly used acronym. Again, crucially, it’s a different matter when gay people themselves use the word, but from a straight person it can feel threatening and/or offensive.

My friend M tells me: “There are terms that are still offensive which get used a tongue-in-cheek way, often to deweaponise the word so when it, inevitably, gets used against us as a slur it is less painful. In the past, particularly during the AIDS crisis and under Section 28, straight people would often be referred to as ‘breeders’. It was meant to be derogatory, as a defensive response to the way LGBTQ people were reduced to their sexuality or gender expression.”

Judging by the comments on one Facebook group for us I was reading, not everyone is a fan of ‘deafie’, though.

“I hate it,” wrote one user, Naomi. “It was always used as a derogatory term by bullies when I was younger.”

Another, John-Paul, seemed less bothered.

“I’ve been called ‘deafo’, ‘deaf head’, ‘mumbo deafo’ (I used to mumble). It doesn’t bother me.”

Yet another, Barry, pointed out that if the term ‘disabled’ refers to anyone with a disability, then there’s no reason why a deaf person can’t call themselves a ‘deafie’. He also quipped that in some ways people could call him what they liked, as he was unable to hear it anyway. (Fair point well made.)

For Anne, life is too short to worry about ‘trivialities’ – ‘my brother calls me a deaf old bat so I told him I can’t help being deaf any more than he can help being bald.’ (I guess the merits or otherwise of calling someone ‘baldie’ is a whole different article.)

For some, clearly, ‘deafie’ is downright rude and borderline or properly offensive, particularly if used by someone you don’t know very well, in a misjudged situation or with the wrong tone.

Comments in the chat included ‘I don’t like this term at all’ and ‘I’d call it out … offensive’, as well as ‘personally I think it’s rude label us as a group using ‘deafies’. If someone said it to me or referred to me as a ‘deafie’, I would soon tell them I’m actually a human being like you, thank you.’

However, at the same time I was struck by how many seemed to shrug their virtual shoulders and not feel too worried one way or the other. So we’re clearly a pretty tolerant bunch.

Personally, I don’t find it particularly offensive, though I might from a hearing person, likewise ‘cloth ears’, and if I’m honest, I’ll probably continue to use both. I see them as generic, all-encompassing terms. I don’t tend to use Deaf/deaf/hard of hearing/deafened myself, if only because it seems such a mouthful. (Don’t @ me.)

At the same time, I agree with those who say it depends on who is using the expression, the tone used and the context.

Back when I was with that local paper, I once found myself on a station platform with the now long retired but once senior and well-known Tory MP for that area, and we were all held up for some reason.

When he found out I was both a reporter and unable to hear, he spluttered ‘A deaf journalist!’ with a scorn I well remember a quarter-century later. I was too young and naïve to respond but a close family member was annoyed at the time that I hadn’t complained. He had a point. Coming from an MP, such a spluttering was appalling.

So of course I appreciate that the language we use to describe each other really does matter.
Indeed, it can be nothing short of a political minefield.

I only learned recently about the word ‘hearie’ to refer to a hearing person, for example. Another writer has written about why this shouldn’t be viewed as an offensive term. ‘Hearie’. Someone who can hear. A hearing person. What’s wrong with that?

Clearly, it’s also worth stressing that hearing folk are in the majority, and not a minority group liable to experience prejudice or a lack of equal rights, as deaf people are.

And will those who object to it also take a similar stance against ‘selfie’? And, indeed, to a lesser extent, ‘deafie’?

So, I say, let’s call each other ‘deafies’ if we want, but with caution, and keeping it within ourselves but probably not accepting such names from the hearing community, while understanding that it won’t always be everyone’s cup of tea.