transabled.org

 

• About
• Login
• Contact
• Accessibility

Google Search:
Web transabled.org Go

 

Blog > Thoughts > Sean's Thoughts > In Response To Bethany Stevens

In Response To Bethany Stevens

Written by Sean on Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Bethany Stevens recently published Interrogating Transability: A Catalyst to View Disability as Body Art, a rather interesting piece discussing transability. This is another one of the papers that have come out at the end of 2011 talking about BIID.

First, I want to thank Bethany for taking the time to talk to me, to read the site, and to question her own prejudices. I wish more people made that effort. We don’t agree on everything, but at least her opinion is an informed one.

Second, I generally don’t like when transability is used as a parable, as a way to make a point. There have been several articles like that and in some ways this article uses transability to support the concept of disability as art. But that is not the entire point of the article, which makes it more palatable.

I’m far from convinced about the concept of disability as art. Stevens makes a good argument in favour of that concept. She writes, and quotes a poet:

It is a powerful tool of resistance against ableism to think of disability as art, particularly in a culture that consistently demands compulsory able-bodiedness. There is so much to value in disability. [...] Disabled performance artist and poet Neil Marcus (1993) perhaps most aptly states this idea in his well-known quote: “disability is not a ‘brave struggle’ or ‘courage in the face of adversity’… disability is an art. It’s an ingenious way to live.”

No argument from me there – indeed there is much to value in disability. But from there to say it is art, I’m not sure. A quick Google search for the definition of the word "art" tells us that art is:

1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,…: “the art of the Renaissance”
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.

Having a disability is neither expressing creative skill and imagination, nor the result of such skill and imagination. From that perspective, I have an issue with the idea of disability as art. And since I find that concept problematic, I’m not sure I like the idea of using transabled folks as an argument in favour of thinking of disability as art. That said, I can see how BIID could be a useful tool to build that argument – we are looking at "body modification", and are seeking such with purpose (as opposed to acquiring an impairment through an accident of birth or injury).

Stevens discusses body modification and associated cosmetic surgery and references her work well. She makes a good case. Along those lines, also worth reading lines is Jordan’s The Rhetorical Limits of the “Plastic Body”. But in fact, there is a big difference between transabled folks seeking to modify our bodies and people into "bodmods". I wrote about the difference between BIID and Extreme Body Modification elsewhere. The short version of the argument is that of "choice". Arguably, most people who go for tattoos, piercings, or other cosmetic surgeries do so out of choice or a desire for expressing creativity/imagination. They have a choice in the matter. Whereas we have not chosen to feel the way we do. The "choice" of whether to have surgery or not is not a real choice.

But setting aside that particular issue, there are several "bits" I want to address in Stevens’ piece.

In transitioning to a disabled body, a transabled individual may use resources available to individuals impaired at birth or through some unintentional illness or accident. These resources include, but are not limited to, the use of accessible bathroom stalls and parking spaces as well as the receipt of limited governmental benefits.

This is a recurring theme amongst the critics of transabled people – those of us with BIID are stealing the precious few resources of people with “real” disabilities. I discussed the issue of “Who Has To Pay For Surgery” in another post. To say that we have no right to “resources” such as accessible toilets, parking spaces or even government benefits, is in fact denying that BIID is a real condition. We can think of BIID as a mental illness, which is trully disabling. Those of us lucky enough to have acquired their required impairment have a real impairment. Either way – we have a disability.

Then there are those of us using durable medical equipment because of our BIID, but we haven’t yet managed to acquire the impairment we need. As Chloe pointed out, we use our wheelchairs or braces to mitigate BIID, not to mitigate paralysis. Those people with disabilities who insist we have no right to use accessible toilets or parking imply that we should "normalise" ourselves – we should ignore BIID, and act as non-disabled people, trying to pass for "normal" in society. This is easier to do for us – because our bodies appear normal. But what’s "under the hood" isn’t normal.

It seems to me to be a rather ableist position to assume, especially for disability studies scholars. If they accept transability as a real condition, as Stevens appears to do, then they need to accept that we must have access to what is necessary to help us function – for instance, using wheelchairs. I use a wheelchair because I cannot function without it. It is a logical extension that if I use a wheelchair to help me function, I also require access to toilets and parking spaces. Saying that I am using someone else’s resources demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of what transabled people are about.

The approach of lobbying for medicalization to forge a rights movement for transabled people is quite ironic to many disabled and other “monstrous bodied” people — who actively work against medicalization. But when the Hippocractic Oath creates a barrier to seeking one’s needed body, it can be logical to use medicalization as a path to a ‘cure.’ Without the body being constructed as diseased or pathological, there would be no need for a ‘cure.’ Therefore, if a transabled person can use the medicalization framework to define transability as a ‘disease’ then they can get ‘treatment’ — surgery. It is necessary for the psychological and psychiatric communities to diagnosis this disease, before surgeons can ethically engage in transability interventions. Thus medicalization occurs in two steps. Transabled people need to acquire a label of disease to then procure a ‘cure’ safely.

Yes, it is ironic that I seek medicalization of BIID considering how hard disability rights advocate are working towards depathologising disabilities. Perhaps the disability community and the transgendered community have the luxury of working towards destructing the pathology model. We transabled people don’t have that luxury. I don’t *want* to be slapped with medical labels, but I believe it is the *only* way at this point in time for us to get what we need – namely access to surgery for those who require it, or alternative methods for those not ready to go for surgery. Alternative methods such as someone using a wheelchair to cope with BIID.

The performance of disability harkens simulated activities in which nondisabled people ride in wheelchairs or walk blindfolded in order to presume knowledge about the disability experience. Such activities are largely panned by the disability community because they seem to make the experience of impairment a game and do not provide insight into the experience of ableism.

Here the author says "the performance of disability" meaning transabled folks’ use of wheelchair & braces. The thing is, we don’t use wheelchairs for some kind of game, and we’re not trying to gain insight into the experience of ableism. We are merely trying to cope with BIID. Do we presume knowledge about the disability experience? I do. But I don’t claim to know what a paraplegic experiences. But then no two paraplegic experience the same thing. No two African-American experience the same thing either. No two gay or lesbians experience the same thing. Oppressed groups have common experiences, but nobody can say they know what the <insert-oppressed-group-name> experience is. I know that through my prolonged use of a wheelchair, I have a pretty good idea of what many of the issues are. And when I laugh and joke around and I happen to be in my chair – it is not a game. Perhaps it just happens that my mind is lighter when I am in my wheelchair.

are transabled people playing disabled or are they really disabled?

And that is the crucial question. The answer to that impacts everything else. I suggest we are really disabled – whether or not we have a physical impairment.

Stevens also asks:

What are the boundaries of disability? Are people who experience disability temporarily not truly disabled or not disabled enough to be authentic? And who has the authority to determine the authenticity of another person’s identity?

These questions are important. Very important. Stevens doesn’t answer them, nor will I. But they needed to be highlighted.

I also have significant reservations about embracing transabled people into the disability community. It is quite problematic that transabled people, pre-transition, can ‘take off’ disability at will. [...] I recognize and feel absolute infuriation at the idea of disability being somewhat of a game that is played out in public to obtain emotional or psychological satisfaction.

This goes back to the question of "what is a disability?". Do we not have a disability, regardless of whether we are pre or post transition? BIID is a disabling condition. We use durable medical equipment to cope with that disabling condition. The continued focus on "only allowed to use DMEs if you have a physical impairment" is, as I suggest earlier on, just another form of ableism. I met a quad at a NCIL conference who stood up and walked to dance with his fiancee. Was he "taking off" his disability because it was more convenient / better to dance standing up? Does his ability to stand up mean his use of a wheelchair is any less valid? Is he privileged because his injury is not complete – and being privileged, should he never, ever dare stand up for fear of being thought less disabled, of making other envious? How about the paraplegic in the Midwest who chose to primarily use crutches only, no braces? Should she not be allowed to use a wheelchair? Should she be forced to always stick to standing up, because otherwise it’s "switching at will"?

BIID is not a game. Using wheelchairs or braces (in public or in private) is not a game. To phrase it as "obtaining emotional satisfaction" is demeaning and diminishes the very real pain caused by BIID. To refuse us the use of tools such as wheelchairs is no different than to insist someone with a spinal cord injury use braces instead of a wheelchair. It would be the same as insisting someone with CP should be walking all the time, because they can.

And if we’re not "allowed" to ever get out of our wheelchairs – then allow us access to surgery. It is cruel to do otherwise.

This article is good and fairly represents my communications with Bethany Stevens. The article shows that she did a lot of thinking and gave us a fair go. She honestly expresses her reservations – and that’s fair enough. Much better than comments like "WTF, you need therapy". We may not agree – but I sure am glad we had discussion.

Twitter Updates

Follow me on Twitter