transabled.org

 

• About
• Login
• Register
• Contact
• Accessibility

Google Search:
Web transabled.org Go

 

Home / Thoughts / Other's Thoughts / Is “Typical” Ideal?

Is “Typical” Ideal?

Written by Kyla on Saturday, March 24, 2007

It seems that in defining one’s body, it is only acceptable to make modifications that move closer to what is considered ‘typical’. Features that are considered to be extra, beyond the norm (e.g. a tail, a third arm, dual sex organs, etc), no matter how necessary the individual with them might find them to be, are seen as needing to be removed; conversely, one who is lacking a typical feature (e.g. blindness, deafness, limb-deficiency, mobility deficiencies, etc) is viewed as unfortunate, and a cure for the condition sought - even if the ‘victim’ is quite content as things are.

This is where the transabled individual falls into the trap. Since our need is to move our bodies AWAY from the idealised typical condition, society resists any attempt for us to actualise these changes. While changes away from the norm that either increase functionality, or are neutral in their effect on functionality, are simply viewed as eccentricities, and even occasionally tolerated, any change away from the norm that diminishes (or removes) an expected functionality is viewed as unacceptable, even in cases where the standard functional level is creating an overload (whether it be physical, neurological, emotional, something else, or some combination) that prevents one from being effective in society.

While I understand the justification (from both sides) for classifying transability as a mental illness, I consider the condition to be a bit more complex than that. Speaking from my personal experience and knowledge, which is primarily in the area of ‘amp-wannabe’, I would say that our condition is no less physical, and no more mental, than that of a 3-armed person seeking an amputation to bring them down to the standard two. Would one consider the latter desire to be ‘mental illness’? If not, then why should a person with the standard two, who feels the need to be reduced to one, or none, be considered mentally ill? Please note that I’m not being amp exclusive here - it’s just that that is my area of personal experience and the bulk of my research; my point applies equally well to any transabled condition. Have we really fallen so far into the Borg that a desire to be different from the norm is what defines a mental illness?

Tags: Norm, Transabled, Mental+Illness, Wannabe

Vote if you like
this post.
0 Vote