Home / Thoughts / Transabled in scholarly journals
Transabled in scholarly journals
Written by Sean on Monday, May 7, 2007
I have just found what is, I think, the first instance of the word "transableism" used in Journals! I am both excited that my word made it, finally, to these journals, and disapointed that the authors of the article in question seem to misunderstand the word.
The article, published by the Cambridge Journals, and titled Transableism, disability and paternalism in public health ethics: taxonomies, identity disorders and persistent unexplained physical symptoms was authored by Robin Mackenzie and Stephen Cox, two authors who have previously written on the topic.
Paper abstract
Transableism is a term which refers to moving between states of being able and disabled by choice rather than by happenstance. Insofar as this may imply a choice to become dependent, claims upon the healthcare system are likely to result. In this piece we aim to explore some ethical and legal implications of such claims. In order to do so, we draw upon current debates over the place of autonomy, beneficence and paternalism in public health ethics, the taxonomy of disability and the status of persistent unexplained physical symptoms (PUPS).
I won’t analyse the entire paper here (though this shall be done for a new site that is soon to be released). But I will comment on a couple things.
- Transabled is not refering to moving between states of being abled and disabled, it is simply a synonym to "someone who suffers from Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID)"
- It is not a question of choice. While on the surface it might be argued that we have a choice in the matter, the fact that we have BIID means that we have no choice on how we feel about our needed impairment.
Having exchanged a couple emails with one of the authors of the paper, it appears that they came up with the same word I did, independently.
From my point of view, I find it both cool and disapointing that scholars came up with the same word I did, but imparted enough difference while being similar enough to it as to create confusion. After nearly three years of common use, the word transbaled as I understand it is finally gaining grounds in the community. But it will be nearly impossible to "fight" against the meaning imparted in a published journal.
It is scary to consider possibilities and consequences of all this.
As a post-scriptum, someone on a Yahoo! group made some cryptic statement about my transabled thesis having been rejected by respected scholars for a variety of reasons. This person has not deemed necessary to name names, and so without supporting evidence, I can only assume that she was blowing smoke up my arse, as she’s done time and again. However, if that comment referred to the Mackenzie & Cox paper, as the authors of the paper were defining the word differently than me, it is not possible to interpret that as a discredit of my use of the word.
This entry appears in Sean's Thoughts, Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You may have your say, or trackback from your own site.
4 Comments
2 On 8 May, 2007, Sean said:
Thanks John :)
FWIW, apart from the fact that the word “apotemonophilia” is ugly, it is also innacurate. It implies a sexual reason for needing the impairment we need. And for most of us, sexuality isn’t the reason we need to be impaired.
As for tiny number of papers tackling the subject, you’re right. Except that I’ve already had another prominent researcher in this field reject the use of the word with my meaning, on the basis that it would create confusion. And he’s generally supportive of my “position”. It just doesn’t bode well.
Do you worry about them seeing the separation between fetishistic desire and genuine need? Initially I do, but the striking similarities between this and GID make me think it is only a matter of time before they figure out the difference.
I guess I ultimately believe in science’s ability to uncover the truth about this condition. So, my worry aside I am happy that we are getting more attention.
It’s not really important but here is first instance of transabled being used in a “talk show” (and also the first snarky punch at the TA [wait til the end]) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3nnSFmGcWo
4 On 28 May, 2007, Eric said:
I know this is an old post, but I thought of something I would like to share.
One of the things that tells a doctor that someone is gender dysphoric as opposed to just a crossdresser or a transgenderist (living the life but not doing anything medically) is the desire for surgery or significant hormonal changes to take place.
If this standard has been placed upon those with GID, why could it also not be placed upon those with BIID? Why not call it Body Dysphoria instead, or something similar? I agree that there is a certain difference between those who just goof around now and then in a chair or who use a cane for fun once in a while and those who desire to have a surgical option for their feelings.
Having a penis (in the literal sense) would certainly not get rid of my GID, but being able to have a better option than the one that already exists for FTM’s like me would be a really positive change within the community. For now, it’s a Frankenstein procedure that many people do not elect. I would hope that BIID would never turn out that way.
We’re always working to change the options, because if they can transplant a face, they can figure out how to alter one’s body well enough to make a viable penis for someone who needs it.
But let’s face it, if a male lost his penis to illness or an accident (John Bobbitt, for example), the doctors are all about making it as useful as possible. But for folks with GID, it’s not even close. What a bogus bulls*** endeavor on their part. We all know what’s up. It’s about forcing us to conform to their ideas of what we need. Stupid idiots…
Post your comments
© transabled.org - 1994-2008 - All Rights Reserved.
1 On 8 May, 2007, John said:
Transabled is a good word, easy to remember and with a meaning that is apparent. It shouldn’t be too surprising that someone else also arrived at a similar word and meaning. I do prefer your definition of transabled–moving between the states of wanting to be disabled and becoming disabled is such a minor component of this condition anyway. Also, transabled is much better term than “apotemnophilia”–try saying that one a few times in a row. It is probably a million times easier to explain the concept of being ‘transabled’ to someone than when using ‘apotemnophilia’.
Finally, it would be hard to say that anything in this field has been rejected by researchers as there is so little research being done. It isn’t too late for your version of the word given the tiny number of papers that tackle the subject.