manual Deaf V Deaf-mute

I think this term manual Deaf is much more better than Deaf-mute. Why? When I see Deaf-mute, I don't see any specific concepts of sign language. Could be broken BSL or SEE. Imagine if you accept being Deaf-mute, you had to sign WITHOUT a voice or broken BSL or SEE (these cumbersome forms often using a voice). Deaf-mute doesn't mean you just sign, you could lost your voice, kind of disabilities affect a voice etc.

There are so many 'D'eaf people sign broken BSL in the UK as well as in the USA for broken ASL. I don't use any voice when I sign except on one to one with my Mum. I don't speak very very very very very well but I don't give a SSE. My mum even asked me if I wanted to go to oral school Boston Spa when I was 8, I said no I like BSL. I never have been to any oral school or being certainly forced to speak all the time (actually my hearing mainstream teacher forced me to speak twice but she gave up immediately as I found this very uncomfortable.), as saying that, I didn't have any oralism experience so I don't have any motivation to stop using my voice generally. I still sign without a voice anywhere.

Manual means I sign any sign languages without using any voice. Also it doesn't mean broken BSL or SEE.
Mute means I choose to not speak which I don't speak. It doesn't mean sign language.

Which is more positive? I prefer to sign or I prefer to not speak? So that's manual Deaf.

That's my view.