'Transablism' is now a thing?!

I think we can also ask whether, if we push the idea of self-id in this way, if there will not follow a group of individuals with what are really mental or personality disorders who really do think they are disabled

And again, looking at psychosomatic disorders and medically unexplained symptoms, those people already exist, have always existed, and are usually extremely easy to spot as they are rarely medically trained, so their symptoms make no sense.

The question is what you do with these people, as they are often victims of CSA or other abuse. They do genuinely need sympathy and support, but often won’t accept it.

The current medical consensus is that confronting them with evidence that they are not disabled doesn’t help, they just get more entrenched. You “accept” them as they are and try to offer physio, counselling etc so they have a way to “recover” without having to admit to themselves that they were making it all up (because they genuinely don’t think they are). And don’t make “being disabled” more appealing to these individuals in terms of attention and validation than “recovering” is. So the “brave and stunning” narrative is completely counterproductive, you need that narrative to apply to overcoming the “illness”.

None of that has anything to do with people with disabilities not wanting to be labelled as disabled though.

all disabled people will be looked at with distrust as people won't know if they have a genuine disability or not

This already happens, with genuine wheelchair users being accused of “faking” if they aren’t literally paralysed, people ranting about cancer patients having blue badges, etc. I don’t think we need self-ID to make some members of the public behave like utter shits to disabled people.

Look, there are good reasons for allowing people with disabilities to “opt out” of being called “Disabled” if they don’t want to be. PIP etc is not based on whether you identify as disabled or not, it’s based on medical reports. A report saying “Mrs Smith definitely feels she is totally disabled” is not going to cut it.

And I don't think we should elevate something like a social model. It's a human idea that was developed in light of certain concerns. That doesn't mean it may not prove to have problems no one expected. Looking back through the 20th century there have been any number of models that have been used, modified, supplanted. There might even be a better way to accomplish what we'd like.

More likely that PIP or other provisions would be reduced further because hey, self ID means we know loads of people identifying as disabled don't actually need them

I think the big impact would be the general public starting to doubt if people with disabilities really are. I know people with "invisible disabilities" already have a really hard time of it. If self-IDing as disabled becomes as popular as self-IDing as women, then all disabled people will be looked at with distrust as people won't know if they have a genuine disability or not.

In some ways it would be worse as people can generally tell a man from a woman - the same doesn't apply with disabilities.

I understand that self identity is part of an important social model, but people need to be aware how the meanings of words become twisted and changed by those with an agenda.

So for example I think some bio males identifying as women really do believe they're female, that biology is somehow optional

The parallels with BIID are pretty obvious.

Indeed. So for example I think some bio males identifying as women really do believe they're female, that biology is somehow optional. Quite a few tw call themselves adult human females and I see no way to be sure they're all shit stirring.

Not only are people dicks, there is a real capacity that human beings have for self-delusion.

Yes, I'd love to think it won't happen with disability, but can't see how we can be so sure. I don't suppose it'd happen in a way that ends up costing money, so it wouldn't be that people could just say they're disabled and get PIP. More likely that PIP or other provisions would be reduced further because hey, self ID means we know loads of people identifying as disabled don't actually need them. Or that there are more exemptions due to expense as in the employer example.

I'm not saying this will happen, but the idea that it couldn't possibly seems to rest on the idea that people aren't going to be dicks. That seems optimistic. People like dickery.

that’s not really somebody identifying as disabled though - that’s somebody malingering for secondary gain, and that’s as old as time.

But if the principle we work on is that individuals define their own reality, there is simply no way to differentiate between malingering and real disability.

I think we can also ask whether, if we push the idea of self-id in this way, if there will not follow a group of individuals with what are really mental or personality disorders who really do think they are disabled.

This is precisely what has happened with gender self-id. It's allowed liars to go unchecked, but it has also meant that mentally vulnerable people have picked up these labels.

I don't see how people understand how this has happened with sex, which really is one of the most distinct and objective human characteristics, and think it couldn't happen in other areas.

that’s not really somebody identifying as disabled though - that’s somebody malingering for secondary gain, and that’s as old as time

Of course it is. That is what self-ID is - I identify as, therefore I am. Just because it is the "wrong sort" of person self-IDing doesn't invalidate their identity.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine that’s not really somebody identifying as disabled though - that’s somebody malingering for secondary gain, and that’s as old as time.

elliejjtiny that was my understanding too - given the long history of institutionalisation, abuse and discrimination that disabled people have faced, it should be entirely down to an individual if that want to take on that label or not. Certainly lots of people in the Deaf community (capital-D Deaf, not general people with hearing loss) would say that are not disabled but just use a language (BSL) that few hearing people are fluent in, and that they are no more disabled than I would be if I moved to China. It’s a minority view, but if you see Deaf people living in BSL/ASL communities (Gallaudet University, for example) they are not disabled by their deafness at all because they are in a society that is completely adapted to their needs.

Because it never happens:

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-island-university-fetish-student-professor-fired-1.4400306

She said she became concerned after a man who said he needed to wear diapers due to a disability complained to her office. Over the years she said the student threatened to file Human Rights Complaints if his special needs were not considered, including his desire to be handled by female staff only.

In the document she said he presented himself to female staff at different campuses — in several cases asking them to change his soiled diapers. Eventually he came to Roth complaining of discrimination.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6166961/Arizona-man-30-allegedly-told-caregivers-Syndrome-baths-diaper-changes.html

An Arizona man pretended he had Down Syndrome so that he could hire caregivers to bathe him and change his diaper, police say.

Paul Anthony Menchaca, 30, was arrested at his parents' home last Thursday in Gilbert, Arizona, after it was discovered that he did not have Down Syndrome.

And yes of course they are rare isolated cases. The point is that being able to self-identity into the protected group of disability, is no different to being able to self-identity into the protected group of women.

People in both groups need to be aware that this is happening and guard against the possible negative impacts, perhaps even more so in the disability group as that is far less clear cut than sex.

I always thought the "do you identify as disabled?" question on forms is because some people who have aspergers syndrome, dyslexia, cleft lip or endometriosis for example would consider themselves disabled and some wouldn't.

I worry about the future of my 11 year old who has ehlers danlos syndrome. He isn't entitled to dla but he still needs a lot of help and isn't able to do many activities for non disabled children. I'm finding that more and more organisations who organise activities for disabled children allow non disabled children to come as well which makes the activity busier and more difficult for my child to attend.

People who want to question disability self-id are labelled as ableists that’s not why you were called that at all. You’re unbelievable

I think perhaps that those with invisible disabilities are not marginalised in the same way as someone who must rely on another to go to the toilet, or who faces the public stares with visible drools, who fears being shot by the police if they have another episode, who must struggle every day with a body they can't control.
Both have issues but they are distinct.

They are distinct. And it is gross to compare or place them in any order. There are thousands of invisible illnesses, some are almost unbearable. You have no fucking idea if it is worse than needing assistance to go to the toilet.

This is the kind of conversation I hate. hate because for some reason, people always feel the need to talk about what condition is worse, what is ‘more severe’ autism and which autistic people should speak and which shouldn’t because ‘they’re too privileged’. It is so detrimental to people with these conditions or disabilities, if they choose to call them that. My daughter would probably be decided by some of you, as a ‘privileged’ autistic person, because she happens to be extremely bright. I can tell you, that does not mean her life is simple or that there aren’t things she needs help with, every damn day. I have developed illness myself looking after her and my husband. I mean how dare any of you sit around and decide what suffering is and what language we can damn well use, based purely on the misuse of it by wankers who want to be special ( a massive minority I WILL NOT change my language for ).

MsMaisel, just wanted to say I hear you. I saw the distinction you were trying to make.

And Terf for someone so upset about being referred to as a bully here, you weren’t half exited about how you went for it here, on another thread. PS if you think you’re on the spectrum, go and try and access diagnostic services and then come back when you understand why ‘identify as autistic’ is valid terminology to those that understand this fucked system and all the women and girls fighting for an assessment. Ffs.

It's not that there is a rising trans disability lobby using the TRA arguments, but that the TRA arguments hijacked the language of the social model of disability, which pre-existed them. That doesn't mean the social model language is wrong, it means we need to be alive to it being misused (see also: "born that way" and "biological essentialism")

Agreed.

Bloody hell. That's disability self-id.
I've seen Mumsnet referred to a few times as allowing ableism to run rife on the boards.
I now see this in the same context as Mumsnet's "transphobia" reputation. People who want to question disability self-id are labelled as ableists. It is verboten wrong think.

I think it's a very real danger.

I was having a workstation assessment, the report on which included having an insanely expensive chair, custom built to replace the knackered one that had no adjustable seat height, a broken back rest and one castor missing.

The purely coincidentally, I'm sure white, male employee who then kicked up such a fuss that he was disabled because he'd hurt his back once, hadn't been offered a Disabled Parking Space or an office near the Disabled Toilet/automatic doors and had to - gasp - sit in a chair that was only £600/less than three months old and walk to the men's toilet - resulted in the order never being placed as 'it wasn't fair to other people' (as I found out when I asked when my chair was arriving).

Apparently, despite going through Occupational Health and all the hoops, it's not discrimination if an employer decides they can't afford to implement the recommendations for such reasons as there is more than one disabled person on the staff.

Maybe he was terrified that his back would go out again I would have suggested that he stopped playing rugby each weekend and was effectively disabled by that. Maybe he believed he was disabled. Or maybe he wanted to feel special and make sure a disabled woman didn't get something he saw as being better.

But oh, how his little face lit up as he drove his car into the Disabled space and bounded up the stairs to his desk each morning.

Yes, I've seen the same thing in the autism community. I too can see where it is coming from, but ironically I suppose a lot of these individuals seem to struggle to see things from the perspective of those who are more severely impacted, or see it as anything other than a black and white issue. I suggested recently to a friend of mine that choosing to be a positive advocate for autism herself was not the same as telling other parents, who had different experiences, that they are doing it wrong, but she seemed to struggle to take in my point. And she is a late diagnosis autistic woman with a child who is a high functioning autistic.

I think the problem of activists claiming to speak for a whole community is a problem all round. I've seen it in the black community, the indigenous community, in feminism, the trans community, the gay community. Somehow the activists convince the general public, and perhaps themselves, they represent the view of the group. I know several members of the black community that have real problems with Black Lives Matter, for example, but you don't hear those voices in the public sphere, if you do they are dismissed as marginal, and if anyone who isn't black expresses a similar POV they are told they are not listening to the Black Voice and are bigots.

I have come to the conclusion that advocacy groups are not as useful as one might hope.

LauraMipsum

Hmmm.... I have only very rarely seen the things you wrote about , and not for many years. And a lot of that was simply the era, and that lots of sometimes elderly parents were involved, all worried sick about their child once they, the parent, died.
The fact is, there is a massive difference between, say, your ASD diagnosis, and people who need 24 hour care for life.

Their need for support is way way higher.

It's Oppression Olympics.

I find the TRA situation basically the same.

Yeah I find them difficult too (I have an ASD diagnosis).

In fairness it gets extremely tiring seeing parents of children who are just like you were lamenting that they were ever born and saying things like I hate autism and I can't wait for him to leave home, and it is tiring seeing autism used for inspiration porn, and it is tiring seeing parents filming their child's meltdown and putting it online for public pity / admiration, and it is tiring watching those parents refuse to accept any advice from autistic people. I see where the #actuallyautistic movement comes from and in principle it's not a bad idea.

However I have also seen in some groups self-identified autistic people who I'm not sure are autistic at all, behaving in exactly the way you describe. The ones I've noticed tend to be younger and also to self-identify as trans, bipolar, various PD's, all sorts. I know lots of NT parents of autistic children really struggle and they need constructive advice (because goodness knows they're not getting any from other services) not a torrent of abuse.

Of those who are diagnosed late, many carry trauma from being parented in the way that the Autism Moms want to keep doing (ABA, ridicule, punishments for meltdowns, grossly restricted diet or compelled eating, preventing stimming, compelling eye contact etc). I don't think they are necessarily helped to recover by being in those groups, and it explains, rather than excuses, the bullying.

*whoa

Who's, I missed your post birdfoot.
Glad others saw this happening.

I worked for years with autistic people, long ago now. But I kept on following a few organisations/support groups in Facebook, often for parents
Most of them got absolutely battered by the new wave of self identified politicised 'autists' who came on and demanded the language etc be changed. They were exactly like TRAs. Many many parents left. Those parents had children with severe autism and they were bullied out by articulate aggressive identity activists who I seriously questioned has autism of any form. And there were plenty of them.

So yes, I'm wary around language demands made of me.
.

Birdsfoottrefoil because I am not completely deaf, grew up hearing normally (so not Deaf), and I have a set of probably ablist assumptions and prejudice about what it means to be “disabled”, so no I probably wouldn’t accept I was disabled. A lot of the adjustments are things I do myself, like positioning myself where I can lipread, and people often don’t realise until they talk to me from the wrong side and I completely ignore them. But I recognise that that is my pride, and that’s why I wouldn’t criticise SIL or others for having a different point of view of what disability is.

The autist thing you describe is exactly what I’m talking about! Of course it’s important not to stigmatise everyone with autism. But people with more disabling symptoms shouldn’t be shut out when they are the least able to advocate for themselves.