'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?

One thing I have noticed with activist communities is that they generate their own language that is not accepted by all the people they claim to represent. Be it autistic people vs people with autism, transwomen vs transsexual, ‘I identify as disabled’ vs ‘I am disabled’. There remains a plurality of thought within these demographics. It also seems that activists often find their group later and need to ‘identify with the group’ more strongly possibly because they may have struggled on their own for longer with people doubting them. Sometimes one group may be wrong but more often it is simply different perspectives.
In terms of disability; Identifying as disabled strikes me as disempowering, as though there is an option and have chosen to be disabled. ‘I am disabled’ seems to invite as a next word ‘by...’ which in turn leads onto finding a way to overcome.

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."

MsMaisel:

I see that you still have not addressed my posts. I write as a woman who gave birth to a child with multiple and profound disabilities. Who lived for several years, and then died.

During his life I was his carer.

What am I supposed to "identify" as, now?

To be be honest, anyone who had come up to me and told me that "transdisabled" was a thing or "identifying as disabled" - I would have told them to fuck off; in fact, I think I did a few times, while protecting my child.

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.

And it is the same language again!

Im sorry, OccasionalKite, I was not aware you had addressed any posts to me. And while I have the deepest sympathy towards your situation and your tragic loss, I am still unsure what exactly you are asking me.

You're the mother of a disabled child. But you are not, yourself, disabled. What's the confusion?

Right there. You have outed yourself right there, as a person who does not give a damn.

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".

I'm off to bed now, work tomorrow.

But I'm very suspicious of the "trans disablist" and "identify as disabled" people, because of my experience as the mother of a very disabled child who is now dead, and my experiences as a woman.

Anyway, goodnight, everyone!

Night night, OccasionalKite

Is this a thread about "transabled" or is this a thread about whether disabled people should be allowed to call themselves disabled without medical evidence, because both issues are being conflated when they are not the same thing.

How are these not the same thing? Transwomen are not women but feel that they are and should be allowed to call themselves women. Surely transabled consider themselves disabled and thus would wish to call themselves disabled, how does that differ from others who consider themselves disabled? Transwomen are quite clearly not the same sex as women, but as disability can be psychological I am not sure how you can distinguish transabled? It can only be by deciding between shades of gray.

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?

Incidentally, this:

"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"

is clearly bollocks, but the author is French and it may be that debate about AGP etc is not as prevalent in France as it is here?

Australia has a different welfare state with less stringent yet difficult barriers to access the pension.
Nonetheless many years ago a fairly successful rock musician in my social circle said that he'd got the pension due to alcoholism. He said that a lot of his acquaintances shared tips on the right things to say to the doctor to become permanently eligible for the disability pension. It meant they could focus on their careers without fiddling about with all the dole bullshit.
Now were these rock musicians genuinely disabled, legally disabled, identified-as-disabled, pretenders, charlatans, opportunists, pragmatists, or doing what they were legally allowed to do, a la Rachel Mckinnon?
My point is that this group were effectively functioning in the same way that part of the transgender community functions.

Another parallel with transgender ideology here is women being told that talking about logical consequences is the "bogeyman".
Women are told when giving an example, "you've given me no evidence apart from your isolated example".
Women who are disadvantaged are ignored. Karen White only had a few victims, is an isolated case, so it is not a useful case in point".
Women have their credibility questioned because they want to talk about the charlatans. "I'm wondering what the agenda is of people constantly bringing up cheaters"

MsMaisel you are conflating disability with diagnosis; they are not the same.

the posters saying that disabled people aren't allowed to call themselves disabled without medical evidence are the ones doing that
Oh, so you do support self-id. I wish I'd known that at the start of this conversation!