kylebeans:
theworldisconfused:
girl-non-grata:
When a person with no impairments appropriates disability. In other words, they feel that they are a disabled person trapped inside an able-bodied person’s body and should be recognized as disabled, receiving all the rights…
I’m surprised that you’re willing to draw a line in the sand regarding the transabled, specifically them all just wanting to be a more special snowflake, while advocating the rights of the transgendered. It draws an uncomfortable incongruity between not accepting the validity of the disorder of someone willing to cut off a leg to be the person they insist, in the face of all obvious physical and logical evidence, they are, and the acceptance of the validity of the disorder of someone willing to cut off their penis to achieve the same.
Will you also be drawing the line somewhere down the gender identity spectrum? How about transgendered males who want to keep their penis and are exclusively attracted to women? What about a person with a transgendered fetish who later decides to transition?
My point is that to say something is “not a valid -ism” puts you in a position to have any other -ism you hold similarly critiqued. The case may be that the transabled have deficit of attention disorder instead of body identity disorder, but then you have to deal with the crossover of transgendered into the transabled, which i assure you exists. Are they, too, doing it for attention?
Ignoring the unlikely answer that “no, no one ever does anything for attention”, how then do you handle a group like the transabled or even the transgendered that ensures they receive the appropriate respect for those with a genuine disorder, while couching your unconditional acceptance against the pretenders? It would be inappropriate to say that they are all “faking.” Its also hard to deny the fact that someone who would sever a limb or put out an eye is in a healthy mental state, but that shouldn’t be the qualifier.
Perhaps your opposition is to the societal impact of being transabled rather than transgendered? A persons gender identity is only likely to affect which bathroom they use, but someone who willingly confines themselves to a wheelchair is now in the position of having special consideration made for them at every staircase, in every public place, in every car, etc. Again, though, where is the line drawn? Do you deny someone an identity disorder because it costs your tax dollars? Your construction costs? Your convenience?
The bottom line in treatment of gender identity disorder, as explained to me by a transgendered friend, is the happiness of the patient. The identity disorder they suffer from may have many sources, both psychological and physiological. Psychological treatment for her would be a lifelong endeavor, and likely to fail anyway. Transitioning, though imperfect and rife with stigma and danger and personal challenges, was the best way to achieve a greater sum total of happiness. This may not be the case for every individual, but combining the imperfect understanding of the mind with the decaying effectiveness of transition methods as a patient ages makes a case for earlier rather than later. The solution is to improve the diagnostic and treatment methods, not to arbitrarily declare the whole issue as invalid.
The same should go for the transabled, but limited by the fact that the physical change they wish to make is not something that is less effective with time. It may be a more inconvenient identity disorder for society to handle, but its still a disorder. At least it won’t suffer the stigma of sexuality being intertwined with it. And hey, if you won’t give aid to the people who do all they can to make disabling themselves have as little impact as possible on others, how do you deal with people who disable themselves and become a great burden to all those around them through their own sheer stupidity?
Or maybe i should just stick to reblogging eyeonspringfield. whatever.
