'Transablism' is now a thing?!

You sound exactly like people who deny that women's spaces are under threat.
And I am not "screaming". I am exploring an issue using examples.
And you clearly don't care about how uneducated people become excluded due to identity politics. You're sorry for my partner are you? But he's collateral damage, oh well.

I am analysing it by linking it with the way women's spaces have been appropriated.
Look at how trans activists have zeroed in on any benefits women get, like shortlists, prizes, scholarships, sports.
I am saying there may be a potential for the same exploitation. We know already that these benefits are exploited, just not yet by those claiming magic trans.

Well I think benefit fiddling links strongly with trans ability. I think we should talk about it.
Like it or not, using "identify as" together with the magic, sacred caste word "trans" has the potential to interfere in the disabled community in the same way women's communities have been invaded. A likely consequence really. The cis-abled will be told not to talk about icky real life consequences of disability, because they're flaunting their cis privilege.
And my partner is not up to date with your empowering language. If he was born 80 + years ago he'd have been institutionalised involuntarily for the rest of his life.
The thing about identity politics is that it is class privileged. My poorly educated partner with his blue collar job isn't part of your special language so he gets excluded, and his data is not collected properly. As I said before, how intersectional.

There are legitimate sources studying BIID, it’s not a fabrication of the gutter press

www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behaviour-change/article/mental-images-in-body-integrity-identity-disorder-biid-and-in-body-dysmorphic-disorder-bdd-an-exploratory-study/4A6FE2DD1C1C8F01B2C149CBCB10A783

Whatever the cause, there are people suffering from it (or claiming to, at least).

It’s just a natural extension of accepting self ID in any form. I feel I am so I am (when you're blatantly not) and you can’t question me.

Was interesting when that crazy Rachael Doolittle woman identified as black. I had a mild argument with a lefty black person who I know and had previously told me I was a cock about trans people in sport. I took the piss about the race story but he just said it was different even though I think it’s the same principle. How is it less crazy for a man to say they're a woman than s white person saying they’re black or non disabled person declaring otherwise. All of these claims have no basis in truth and are crazy yet I was portrayed as being some sort of right winger!

nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

MsMaisel I absolutely agree. I identify as disabled - others probably wouldn’t identify me as such without knowing me well (my chronic illnesses aren’t visible, and the debilitating effects are mainly seen only by my DH and children, behind closed doors). My sons are autistic and are severely impaired, and I call them disabled - plenty of people with ASD do not consider themselves to be disabled or identify as such. My son is visually impaired, whereas I know deaf people who detest the term hearing impaired and would never want it to be used about them.

Language is important and unfortunately some of it has been rather hijacked.

One of the documentaries I saw featured online communities for transabled people, discussing how to pass as disabled, where to purchase wheelchairs and other mobility aids etc. I think for some it’s a fetish, for others a mental illness - the medical term for the latter is BIID, I believe.

Interesting. I always struggle with the ‘do you consider yourself to have a disability’ question. I work in a role where I am acutely aware of the definition of a disability under the EqA2010 and I know that my condition qualifies me as being covered. However I also don’t consider myself as disabled and I am very lucky in that I manage my condition well enough for any impact on my day to day life to be minimal. (It would not be minimal without proactive intervention). How am I even supposed to answer it? Because the actual answer is no, I don’t consider myself disabled, BUT I know that the question is about if I’m likely covered by the EqA and the answer to that is yes.

It is the reluctance to use straightforward language to ask what they want to know that causes complications like this. There is a definition that either applies or doesn’t. What does identification or feeling have to do with if that set of criteria objectively applies?

Surely this has existed since the welfare state established the disability pension (as it is called in Australia). There are plenty of people who have convinced a doctor they have a condition. A friend of a friend is quite open about it - she doesn't like working and can now pursue her hobbies. The govt even employ private detectives to catch them out.

Now its got a name of "trans" they've got a veneer of queer theory legitimacy.

Oh and by the way my partner was doing an official govt survey last year - at the end they asked him if he "identified as disabled". He was quite insulted and said "no I am disabled but I do not identify as disabled" (he has a carefully managed chronic condition that is classified as a disability here - due to the stigma he doesn't tell prople). He is fine disclosing it for data collection though. But no - he had to go down on the survey as non disabled! So the transabled get included as disabled but the disabled don't! How inclusive! How intersectional.

Wow, I feel sick. I kind of can't believe this but after all of the other awful stuff I've read about this movement, I can believe this. It all reeks of extreme, pathological narcissism, selfishness, low to no empathy, complete disregard to the feelings and lives of others, delusional thinking and fetishes.

If they let these people get away with this, imagine all of the funding they will remove from actual disabled people to access society. All of these bizarre ideas should have stayed in some dark corner of the internet, it's unbelievable they have managed to get MPs and organisations to change policies to suit them. Imagine if they got disabled toilets banned, because it made them feel bad seeing them or something ridiculous like that. It's exactly the kind of thing they would do, given that they are currently working hard to destroy women only spaces. I can't think about it too much because it will make me feel ill.

Society and the people in power must stop pandering to these people so that common sense, truth and fairness can be restored.

Can you link to the actual paper instead of a screenshot of the title?

I saw this earlier on twitter and was saddened that I wasn't shocked.
In a fucked up way it's helpful really. If this doesn't get people to question the ever extending bending and twisting of language to include those who feel like they want to be in categories of something they're not then I don't know what will.

I always assumed tbe "do you consider yourself disabled " was for people like me who don't qualify for a blue badge but who have a chronic condition.

It's just people wanting their fetishes publicly validating. I can't fathom what will be next.

The Scottish Women’s Autism Network accepts people who are neither women or autistic - so long as they identify as both (or ‘non-binary’)

I've seen "Do you consider yourself disabled?" on job application forms for many years. Certainly before I had dc, so some 20y or more ago. It always struck me as odd. A person could have a disability which required a reasonable adjustment to be made, eg a hearing-impaired person who would be unable to hear a fire alarm, but not consider themselves as disabled. How does that form of words help the very people at which it is aimed?

As it happens, I identify as autistic. But that is about me and how I cope with the world. It is mostly private and inside my own head. It is nothing to do with how I expect the world to relate to me.

Michelle yes, maybe. I’m trying to avoid using the term mental health issue as we have seen it to be branded bigotry to suggest such a thing (which I have my own issues with as it keeps MH probs stigmatised) but I would guess actually removing a leg at least suggests MH issues, whereas identifying as disabled whilst remaining able bodied is something else. At present I feel we could use terms like fraudulent or fetish but is this something that may change?

(Rambly as my daughter is identifying as a bloody chicken at the moment and being INCREDIBLY loud)

I have MS. If you want to take it off me, here you go.....no , wait.