'Transablism' is now a thing?!

I just wanted to quote again from the Baril article, because the author is explicitly drawing parallels:

"Although transfeminist theories have demonstrated that these representations of trans women constitute forms of violence based on cisgender/cissexual privileges, some treatments of the ‘heated dialogue’ between transabled and other disabled people, such as Harmon’s (2012), suggest that some anti-ableist activists have yet to deconstruct their own cis privileges. The problem is that transabled people have no voice within anti-ableist studies and movements; their words and knowledge are subjugated and do not count. Their exclusion is not conceptualized as violence because cisnormativity remains under-theorized. Whereas interpreting a trans woman as a man impersonating a woman (an ‘evil deceiver’; Bettcher 2007), referring to her as a man, considering her gender presentation ‘pretending’, and excluding her from women-only spaces are now perceived as acts of transphobic violence in many feminist circles, interpreting transabled people as able-bodied individuals impersonating disabled people, calling them ‘wannabes’, considering their practices and self-presentation ‘pretending’, and excluding them from spaces reserved for disabled people is not considered, paradoxically, a form of ableist, cisnormative violence in many disabled circles. Interestingly, the fetishization/appropriation of minority experience argument is used against some groups, but not others. For example, the argument that trans people are cisgender/cissexual people (dominant) who fetishize/appropriate the experience of a minoritized group (trans) is never used, while the fetishization/appropriation of disabled experience is seen as the main feature of transability. Conceptual tools developed in trans studies are useful to uncover the cisnormativity that prevents many anti-ableist activists from counting transabled people among their number."

Basically, disabled people (whom the author wants to call "cisdisabled" people ) commit violence against transabled people by excluding them from discourse about disabilities. Cisdisabled people are unaware of their cis privilege, which is derived from society's "cisnormativity*" (dunno what the asterisk denotes), which is "the perception that the desire to transition one’s sex, abilities, or other characteristics is less normal than a lack of desire to do so". Disabled people need to be aware of the huge privilege that they derive from being cisdisabled (that is, "disabled") rather than transdisabled (identifying as disabled while not actually being disabled):

"Uncovering cisnormative* privileges [...] shows that transabled people occupy a marginalized position (‘Others’) in relation to other disabled people and activists."

Sound familiar? The literal violence? The claims that cisnormativity marginalises an (otherwise-privileged) group more than another (actually-disadvantaged) group?

Night night, OccasionalKite

I'm a bit confused by this part of your post, MsMaisel:

This thread is about "transabled" people. The definition of a transabled person is someone who freely and openly admits that they have no actual disability, but who in some nebulous way "identifies" as disabled. I see no evidence these people exist

"Transabled" people most definitely do exist - in fact, you yourself said earlier that they're a handful of people with BIID. Or do they not count as transabled because, paradoxically, they are mentally ill (and therefore disabled)?

To quote again from the Baril article: "While many transabled people say they suffer from BIID, other individuals with this need self-identify as ‘transabled’, a term coined by O’Connor, the transabled activist who started transabled.org".

Oh and I would bet every single penny I have that I'll be voted World President before Britain institutes "self ID" without medical evidence for disability benefits.

Well no, obviously it won't happen with claiming benefits. But that's not the only reason why you might identify yourself as disabled - for example, you might be asking an employer to accommodate your needs, or just explaining those needs to friends or acquaintances. There's a much lower burden of proof there. In fact, I see this increasingly frequently on MN: posters who self-diagnose as autistic or with OCD, but who have not pursued an actual diagnosis (and probably never will). I do understand why people may feel that they don't want the hassle of trying to get an "official" diagnosis, especially if they arw an adult who is functioning (reasonably) well. But by claiming that they are autistic or whatever, with no actual proof/definite grounds apart from a feeling or intuition, they are definitely muddying the water for those who do have a diagnosis or are trying hard to get one.

A psychologist told me that an able-bodied person who is convinced they are disabled, ie. with Munchausens, IS to all extents and purposes having that disability, because they are disabled by their own self-perception.

That's exactly the argument that the author if the paper in my OP is making, terfsandwich - that they are really disabled, just not necessarily in the way that they think they are

To quote from the paper:

"If disabled activists who classify transability as a psychological disorder were interested only in physical disabilities, the issue [of whether or not they are really disabled] would be moot. However, many also fight for the rights of mentally disabled people. Transability therefore appears to occupy a special status: despite the desire to fight ableist attitudes towards mental disabilities (or ‘mentalism/madness’) and the inclusion of mental health issues in disability, these activists do not count transability as a disability despite the assertion that transabled people are psychologically troubled."

X-posted with terfsandwich, but I think we're making the same point.

On the other hand, if we are heading towards self-ID for disabilities (I'm not saying we are necessarily, or that that's what BIID is), then the logical conclusion is that it's not up to you to exclude classes of people from being disabled. That's the point! In fact, isn't that essentially the "no true Scotsman" argument that TRAs often use? I.e. that any self-declared TW who abuses that status to gain access to women is not "really" trans...

I wasn't trying to bring everything back to benefit cheats - quite the opposite! I was agreeing with you that it's unhelpful to lump the two cases together because benefit cheats are just that - cheats!

If you read my posts, you'll see that my son has multiple disabilities (for which we claim benefits). I am well aware how difficult it is to get such benefits and how high the burden of proof is I am also aware that the fraud rate - despite what is claimed in the Daily Mail etc - is very low, one of the lowest rates of all benefits types.