Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by Dracophoenix on Monday December 19, 2022 @02:39PM
(#34056603)
Unlike deafness, cancer tends to be fatal. More appropriate comparisons (though not entirely comparable) would be gender dysphoria, autism, or, if the "gay gene" hypothesis is to be believed, homosexuality.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by josephcsible on Monday December 19, 2022 @04:11PM
(#34057773)
Quadriplegia also isn't fatal. Should we reject a miracle cure for it too?
Re:Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
by Dracophoenix on Monday December 19, 2022 @05:32PM
(#34058717)
I don't think we should reject the creation of a medical cure at all. I'm completely of the view that if an procedure exists to treat/cure a problem (however that's defined to exist) the procedure should be available to the extent the creator is interested in providing it.
However, GP expanded upon a sociological dimension to disabilities and chronic illnesses that isn't usually discussed and considered. When asking "How do they cure it", an important question to consider is "Do they/ Would they ever want a cure and under what corcumstances?"
It's quite the coincidence that deafness was the example used, because the scenario GP describes actually happened once before:
https://www.icphs2019.org/the-marthas-vineyard-deaf-communit...