Being able to manage some spoken communication does not mean it has been made accessible.
“Can't you just lipread?”
It's a familiar question.
Through my own experiences and wider observations, I've seen how lipreading can be treated as a convenient alternative to arranging appropriate communication support.
Sometimes the question comes from someone who genuinely doesn't understand what lipreading involves. Other times, it can reflect an assumption that a Deaf person should be able to manage without additional support.
But what exactly is being assumed?
That seeing someone's mouth means understanding everything they say?
That a Deaf person who can lipread doesn't need an interpreter, captions or another form of communication support?
Or that communication is accessible as long as the Deaf person tries hard enough?
Lipreading can be useful. Some Deaf and hard-of-hearing people rely on it as part of their everyday communication, while others use it occasionally or not at all.
But lipreading has limitations.
Not every speech sound is visible on the lips. Some words look similar, and understanding often depends on context, facial expressions, familiarity with the speaker and the surrounding environment.
Lighting, speaking position and the pace of conversation can also affect how much information is understood.
Even when someone appears to follow a conversation, that does not mean they have understood everything.
They may be filling in gaps, interpreting context or working considerably harder to make sense of incomplete information.
And that effort is not always visible to the person speaking.
This is where an individual communication strategy can become mistaken for an accessibility arrangement.
Someone may be able to lipread well enough to manage a brief conversation.
But what happens during a medical appointment, job interview or important meeting when the information becomes complex, unfamiliar or sensitive?
Who decides whether lipreading is sufficient?
The person relying on it, or the person who finds it convenient?
That distinction matters.
There is a difference between a Deaf person choosing to lipread because it works for them and an organisation expecting them to rely on it instead of providing the communication support they need.
The first respects individual choice.
The second risks transferring responsibility for accessibility onto the person already facing the barrier.
It can also create a misleading impression.
If someone manages to get through a conversation, others may assume the arrangement was successful.
But managing is not necessarily the same as understanding fully, participating confidently or being able to make informed decisions.
A Deaf person should not have to demonstrate how much communication they can struggle through before appropriate access is considered.
Nor should lipreading ability be used to make assumptions about someone's need for BSL interpreting, captions or other adjustments.
Different Deaf people have different communication preferences and requirements. Those differences should be recognised rather than replaced by a single expectation.
The question should not be how much spoken information a Deaf person can work out for themselves.
It should be whether the communication arrangements actually meet their needs.
A person's ability to cope with an inaccessible situation should never be mistaken for evidence that the situation is accessible.
THE QUESTION
What happens when someone's ability to manage communication barriers is treated as evidence that appropriate access is no longer necessary?
