• islandcoda42@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I think deaf people should be allowed a “hearing ear dog” that can listen for traffic etc for you. And you can bring it anywhere.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 hours ago

      She had her hearing ear dog with her but just ignored its signal barks! That’s why the dog wasn’t kicked off the plane because those involved saw it was trying to do its job and didn’t deserve to miss its flight.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Service dogs should be limited to people who really need them because they conflict with people who have dog allergies.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The access needs of one group of people shouldn’t override the needs of another group. Especially not as a blanket policy.

        If a person who needs an assistance dog needs to interact with someone who is allergic to dogs (even if that interaction is indirect, such as sharing the same space), this is what disabled folk call “competing access needs”.

        There is no simple solution on what to do when this problem arises, because actually building an accessible society requires conversations that go beyond universal guides or protocols. There are often ways to find compromises to make a situation work. Sometimes there aren’t. But the most important first step is for the people who are affected to be able to have a productive conversation about things, because without that, we would be undermining disabled people’s agency and bodily autonomy.

        It’s not your place to decide who “really needs” a service dog or not. People who try to gatekeep accessibility resources or reasonable adjustments to people who “really need” them often mean well, because they think that the people who “don’t really need” them undermine access to resources for the “real disabled people”. Unfortunately, that rhetoric ends up shutting out a heckton more “real disabled people” than the people who genuinely don’t really need support.

      • UnrepentantAlgebra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        11 hours ago

        That’s easy to solve. We just give them an allergy service dog that warns about potential allergens and chases them away if needed.