'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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.