1. Are you saying that anyone who cannot speak orally must necessarily be a signer?
No. What we advocate for is the right to freely choose one’s natural and primary language, tailored to each individual’s circumstances and conditions. To make a genuine choice, it is essential that all options are thoroughly understood, available from the very beginning, and free from barriers. No one should be pushed down a single path simply due to a lack of alternatives.
2. But if they sign, will no one outside understand them?
The focus should never be placed on the individual’s limitations, but on the shortcomings of a society that is not yet accessible. The environment MUST be accessible by right, ensuring that anyone can use sign language freely and without barriers in their day-to-day life.
To achieve this, families must learn alongside the individual, schools must integrate sign language naturally, and public and private spaces must be inclusive. Does that sound utopian? No, it is a recognised right.
3. Wouldn’t a purely oral approach be easier so that everyone can understand them without so much effort?
Demanding that a person give up their natural language so as not to «inconvenience» or «make extra work for» those around them is a form of exclusion. Language is not merely a convenience to make things easy for others; it is the direct vehicle of identity, thought, and dignity. The fair solution is not to curtail an individual’s ability to communicate, but to expand society’s tools to guarantee accessibility.