'Transablism' is now a thing?!

[mackerella]

Is this the logical conclusion of self-ID? Able-bodied people who identify as disabled are complaining that they are excluded from disabled communities and disability studies

mobile.twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1155275175161675776

As a parent of a disabled child (and the daughter of a disabled parent!) I can't even express how angry this is making me feel. But it may peak trans another few people?

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.

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?

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.

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

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!

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).

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.

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.

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.

So we can't have a conversation about it. This is another parallel to trans activism. You are forbidding discussion using attacks and hyperbole, while claiming you are the one being attacked.

A lot of people have a negative view of the word disabled. There is often a perception that a person who refuses to see themselves as disabled (despite being disabled) is really brave. A blind person saying - no, I'm not disabled, I don't let my blindness stop me from doing things - is viewed almost heroically.
I don't agree with that viewpoint. I don't think it is heroic or brave to deny being disabled.

I am disabled, that's an inescapable fact. It's not a negative thing in itself, it doesn't make me any less than anyone else. Acknowledging it makes it easier for me to arrange appropriate support.

Being disabled has a definition:
You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.
‘substantial’ is more than minor or trivial, eg it takes much longer than it usually would to complete a daily task like getting dressed
‘long-term’ means 12 months or more, eg a breathing condition that develops as a result of a lung infection

For most people, it is fairly clear if this definition applies to you. There are people who don't neatly fit, particularly for conditions that vary a lot. This is where identifying as disabled can be more useful. It is not for people who don't meet those criteria to use by choice.

According to the DWP I am not disabled
Except the DWP doesn't decide that. The DWP doesn't tell anyone they are not disabled, they tell disabled people whether or not they meet their criteria to claim certain benefits.
You still have legal protection under the EHRA as a disabled person, even if you have been turned down for benefits.

A person who chose to identify as disabled when they clearly weren't, would not have any legal protection, would not be able to request reasonable adjustments and would not qualify for benefits. All of those things require evidence.

Oh, and I've made crystal clear that I am extremely anti-TRA. Several of my posts in this thread alone have talked extensively about the risks the TRA movement poses to women. So please don't gaslight me.

And what I am talking about is the risk, and the potential, for the same thing to happen to disabled spaces. Instead you are insisting we can't talk about this risk because MN users often have an approach you don't like, which I know nothing about.

What you have shown is that the disability activist community is already mired in identity politics. This means there is an "oppression Olympics" where the loudest voices forbid dissent or discussion. I am giving my partner's perspective. I am not screaming. I am questioning.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows anyone to self-identify as disabled and forbids organisations for asking to see proof. That caused huge problems for places like DisneyWorld as too many people claimed to be disabled in order to get a queue pass. It was because of this that Disney had to change their policy to stop the queue pass system and switch to a virtual queue. Disabled people lost out because people abused a version of self-id.
This all happened because the law prevents places from asking for proof.

In the UK, it is expected that disabled people have to provide proof if they identify as disabled and want access or adjustments. Long may that continue.

It's not the "identifying" that is the problem, it's the need to see proof.

And what I am talking about is the risk, and the potential, for the same thing to happen to disabled spaces.

Unless I'm missing something, all that has actually happened is that MrsMaisel has explained why many disabled people prefer the phrase "identify as disabled", and pointed out that disabled people spend a lot of time having to listen to the whole people-faking-disability-for-benefits shit already. Especially those of us with invisible disabilities, who've been at the receiving end of those assumptions.

It is unfortunate that your partner didn't have that part of the form explained, so an informed choice could have been made. But the answer is not to get rid of that phrasing.

I also think the accusations aimed at the disability activist community are unneccessary, especially as you've already shown you've never engaged with that community (if you had you'd already know why "identify as disabled" is the preferred choice).

Clearly none of us in this thread, disabled or not, want able bodied people pretending to be disabled. Whether it's a fetish, a means to deceive, or a genuine mental health issue.

But those of us who identify as disabled would quite like our voices to be at least heard when we point out how we would like to talk about ourselves - especially as there is a tendency for able bodied people to use dehumanising language about us already, or to infantalise us.