Embed Notice

As a person that went fully blind in my late twenties, I can read raised print and I know many Braille users that can't read raise print, at all. I had a situation where I had to read for other blind people that did not know raised print. In a situation where I had to aid others in reading signs on a wall because they did not know raised print, in your definition anyway, I was truly literate. The fact I can read raised print faster than I can read Braille makes me literate, but to your post, because I don't know contracted Braille, or even uncontracted Braille well enough for speed reading or fluent reading out loud, for that matter, I am still illiterate even though I can, in some cases but not all, spell better than a few Braille readers I know. It is not internalized ableism if I choose to learn my preferred way, which is via audio means. I can still spell, check grammar, correct other Braille user's grammar, edit books, write, and improve spelling. In fact, I read books in raised print format on one day, uncontracted Braille on another day, and audio for the rest of the days. Two things can be true at the same time. Blind people need to learn Braille, and there are other ways to read other than Braille. Sighted people should never take Braille away from us. At the same time, blind people should also never contribute to ableism by insinuating there is a right and wrong way to do things. I think James is getting closer to the crux of the issue than you are at the moment. Also, there are different kinds of readers. Dyslexic people don't contribute to this wave of ableism capriciousness. The bigger issue is Braille access and blindness autonomy and you can advocate for Braille without buying into ableist thoughts yourself. @JonathanMosen @jscholes