CockneyRebel wrote:
I don't get transableism. Why would someone want to make themself disabled? People with disabilities are treated like second rate citizens. Why would someone want to be treated like a second rate citizen?
Victim identity.
In America some have floated the idea that hard drugs shouldn't be banned. Their reasoning is that dug convictions disproportionately affect minorities. If you look at evidence for black drug arrests over white drug arrests along with sentences, you find that those claims are...I'm not going to say "wrong," perhaps "nuanced" is a better word. The argument I've heard is that minorities shouldn't be prosecuted because white prosecutors know that minorities use drugs and that prosecuting them means they are being oppressed.
So IF this became reality, it would enable drug use out in the open. Minorities would have legitimized claim that they can't be prosecuted for drug crimes because being a minority allows them to possess and use drugs. What about people who aren't in a minority group? They would have to IDENTIFY as being in a minority, otherwise they'd risk prosecution. If just anyone can IDENTIFY as belonging to a racial minority, you risk class envy, paranoia, and suspicion. White people who IDENTIFY as non-white would be guilty of cultural appropriation or even outright fraud, and thus could continue to exploit non-whites.
This is all, of course, purely hypothetical. What about in reality?
Well, there's Rachel Dolezal, a complicated character if there ever was one. Look her up on Wikipedia some time. Fascinating. I honestly do believe her, that she sincerely identifies as black. Many people agree that race is a social construct, so things like what race you're born into and what you identify as are largely irrelevant. The problem is that black people have long felt they were denied the right to write their own story. Rachel's sin is not that she's a white woman who identifies as black. Plenty white women marry into black families and find acceptance within the black community. Rachel's sin was that she lied about being black--she didn't simply IDENTIFY as black, she told everyone she WAS black, that she was born black. No, she's a white woman born to white parents. In my opinion, she fetishizes black culture, and changing her hair and skin really just amounts to blackface and racism.
What does this have to do with "transableism"? The rest of the story is that this isn't Rachel's first brush with victim identity. In 2002 Rachel sued Howard University (a traditionally black university) for discrimination based on race, pregnancy, family responsibilities, and gender. She also sued for retaliation. She lost her lawsuit. She was saying that she was a victim of racial discrimination by a black university because she's a white woman. Losing the lawsuit means that she's not "victim enough." In order to gain entitlement to success, she would need to be an ACTUAL black woman.
Now apply Rachel's situation to the concept of transableism. Do disabled people get special treatment? Yes, disabled people genuinely need accommodations to do the same things others do. And yes, because disabled people often lack the earning power that abled people have, it makes sense that they should have access to services and maybe even money to buy necessities they wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. Yes, disabled people are often bullied because people are jerks and love to pick on people who are somehow different or weak. Yes, evil exists in the world.
However...YES, disabled people also get pity and other attention, and often affection, from people feeling sorry for them and their condition. And...dare I say it, but people fetishize disability--both abled people who identify as disabled, and abled people who have a preference for disabled people.
Why do people want to be treated like 2nd class citizens? For some, as irrational as it is, it's all about the special privileges and treatment that normies don't get.
I do think that it's acceptable that disabled people get special treatment. I don't begrudge services and special favors to help people who can't do things normal people do. I think what bothers me most is that some expect accommodations and various forms of help but STILL want to be regarded and treated just like people who aren't disabled. And I think the nature of being in need or disabled makes it so you CAN'T get the same treatment as normies, that you can't really be thought of as the same or just like anyone else. And that's because normal people never get any special treatment or favors. If you're in the line at a Disney World ride and you're in a wheelchair, I think it's plenty fair to skip to the head of the line. But if you want people to look at you and talk to you the same way as normal people, you have to wait in line like the rest of us. I don't think you can ever ethically give anyone the best of both worlds. I think with transableism it's all about the perception that normal people can do all these things, but disabled get that AND can skip to the head of the line. But mostly I think it's just the attention. Rachel Dolezal apparently thought doing graduate work at a historically black university was enough to entitle her to the best black or liberal academia has to offer--after all, black values entitle minorities to certain privileges and programs. Why shouldn't a woman expect fair treatment? If Rachel doesn't get what she wants, she should be able to sue the school, right? They'd be hypocrites to deny her, a woman, the same rights and privileges black people had to fight so hard to get. And in the end, it was never about fairness. It was about Rachel getting special treatment. And she learned the hard way that she had to cut through multiple layers of oppression (intersectionality) to get what she wanted.
Disability seems to be following a similar pattern as per this topic.
01 May 2023, 3:16 pm
