Things are getting ever more weirder

[Sojourner]

We've been inundated with a 3 ring circus of transgender ideology, but are you familiar with "transableism?" Formerly known as BIID, or "Body Integrity Identity Disorder," in which a person actually chooses to "identify" as handicapped, the psychological disorder has been re-labeled "transableism," to piggyback on the current trans culture. Some people are practicing self-mutilation or asking medical professionals to inflict physiological damage that will bring about the desired form of disability. Some desire to be blinded, have limbs amputated, or even have their spinal cord severed.

 I always say nothing really surprises me anymore, but someone desiring to be disabled bewilders me. I can only imagine people who are truly disabled and wish they weren't, are a little baffled as well. Seems one can be viewed as pretty much anything they choose to identify as these days. I have to wonder, when our era of political correctness legitimizes transableism, how many people who identify as disabled will qualify for disability payments. Anyway, here's the report from Fox News:

A troubling societal issue called "transableism" is attracting attention these days.

Transableism is a newer term for BIID, or "Body Integrity Identity Disorder," in which a person actually "identifies" as handicapped.

BIID has been relabeled to transableism to align with today's trans community, according to some.

The point of "changing the identifier" from a psychiatric condition (BIID) to an advocacy term (transableism) is to "harness the stunning cultural power of gender ideology" to the cause of allowing doctors to "treat" BIID patients by "amputating healthy limbs, snipping spinal cords or destroying eyesight," according to Evolution News and Science Today (EN), which reports on and analyzes evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues.

Culturally, transableism is "the next abyss," that site also notes.

Why?

Because "some of these persons mutilate themselves; others ask surgeons for an amputation or for the transection of their spinal cord," that site adds of the shocking steps some are taking.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) notes on its website, "Those with BIID desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or desire a paralysis."   

He went on, "It’s embarrassing, and I don’t know if you can be considered a serious human being if you alter your body like this, instead of getting the appropriate mental help you need."

In one case of BIID, Jørund Viktoria Alme, 53, a senior credit analyst in Oslo, Norway, identifies as disabled and uses a wheelchair, even though she has no physical handicap.

Alme is also transgender, according to Heraldscotland.com. Alme said on the morning TV program "Good Morning Norway" in 2022 that it had been a "lifelong wish" to have been born "a woman paralyzed from the waist down," the same source noted.

In an even more shocking case, a 21-year-old North Carolina woman who identified as blind actually took steps to destroy her own eyesight, according to multiple reports from a few years ago.

One Arizona internist called today's transableism a "delusional disorder."

"In my opinion, both transgender and transabled persons suffer from a delusional disorder," Jane Orient, a general internist in Tucson, Arizona, and executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told Fox News Digital via email.

"The Oath of Hippocrates adjures physicians to do no harm," Orient said.

"Mutilating the body is an objective harm even if makes the patient subjectively feel better," she added.

"The disability is lifelong and imposes burdens on others — and neither patients nor physicians can duck responsibility for that."

Orient also noted, "With transgenders the follow-up is generally very short — not sure about the [follow-up with] elective amputees," she said.

"The ‘no other way’ [to cope with the condition] excuse is a cop out; we need to find other ways," she also said. "Denial of reality is anti-scientific."

Dr. Marc Siegel, a clinical professor of medicine and a practicing internist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City — as well as a Fox News medical contributor — told Fox News Digital via email that most doctors will "only perform procedures they feel are medically indicated."

Siegel referred to Munchausen syndrome, which is a "factitious disorder" in which a person "repeatedly and deliberately acts as if they have a physical or mental illness" when they are not really sick, according to WebMd.com.

Dr. Siegel continued, "We deal with Munchausen and Munchausen by proxy, where patients can be quite convincing about illnesses they don't really have — and we need to be on the lookout for this."

Calling cosmetic plastic surgery procedures a "gray area," Siegel noted that "as an internist who clears people for all kind of surgeries, I find myself in lengthy discussions with patients about whether they really need a face lift, tummy tuck, etc."

He added about "transableism," "I would never clear anyone for surgery to remove a limb that does not need removal."

The North Carolina college student also said about today's trend of transableism, "Today, I feel like people would [even] encourage mutilation for ‘transabled’ people, in order to be thought of as an ‘ally.’"

 

[Athanasius]

As the resident trans person let me affirm that this is nonsense, pushed by TRAs (trans rights activists) who hate dysphoric people, or mentally ill people who need rigorous therapy and competent medical care. BIID needs to be recognised for what it is (a physiological self-perception issue) and not "diversity" or something to be celebrated.

[Oscar_Kipling]

As the resident trans person let me affirm that this is nonsense, pushed by TRAs (trans rights activists) who hate dysphoric people, or mentally ill people who need rigorous therapy and competent medical care. BIID needs to be recognised for what it is (a physiological self-perception issue) and not "diversity" or something to be celebrated.

I first heard the term in 2008-9-ish in a discussion about about the David Cronenberg film "Crash". You seem to have a deeper understanding of the roots and usage of the term, could you share any information/sources on the history/development of this term especially regarding it as a creation or rhetorical tool of TRA's? Additionally information that illustrates the motives of the TRA's that you suggest here would also be useful.

[ProDeo]

Makes me wonder if in essence this is just another form of attention seeking.

[Athanasius]

Makes me wonder if in essence this is just another form of attention seeking.

Much of it is narcissism and assorted unaddressed mental illness.

[Sojourner]

There seems to be a similarity between this disorder and other body image distortions like anorexia. People simply have a distorted perception of themselves, and cannot be convinced of that fact. I also wonder if there is not some similarity to the attention-seeking motivation that characterizes Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

I remember one specific case of BIID several years ago, in which a sighted woman named Jewel Shuping, obsessed with being blind, damaged her eyes with drain cleaner. I think she was featured on the Dr. Phil show.

[Athanasius]

As the resident trans person let me affirm that this is nonsense, pushed by TRAs (trans rights activists) who hate dysphoric people, or mentally ill people who need rigorous therapy and competent medical care. BIID needs to be recognised for what it is (a physiological self-perception issue) and not "diversity" or something to be celebrated.

I first heard the term in 2008-9-ish in a discussion about about the David Cronenberg film "Crash". You seem to have a deeper understanding of the roots and usage of the term, could you share any information/sources on the history/development of this term especially regarding it as a creation or rhetorical tool of TRA's? Additionally information that illustrates the motives of the TRA's that you suggest here would also be useful.

It originated from transabled.org, which died out in 2013. You can use the Way Back machine to see some of the content, e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20130202061859/http://transabled.org/.

It wasn't a rhetorical tool of TRAs, but is a misguided attempt by people with BIID to latch onto the 'trans' umbrella. 'Transabled' has nothing to do with transsexuality or gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, of course, but apparently 'trans' is a magic word to gain acceptance and legitimacy and 'vulnerable member' status ('trans' being the only such group you can voluntarily join). It's then pushed by TRAs as just more human diversity.

You could review:

- https://daily.jstor.org/the-complicated-issue-of-transableism/
- https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-diabolic-logic-of-transabelism/

There are plenty of articles between 2011 - 2015 that examine the 'updated language' and phenomena more fully. That it's just catching on now, again, is typical. The sinister nature of it, of course, is that it more broadly abuses the notion of "identity", and attempts to draw comparison between amputation or inflicted disability with something like SRS, mastectomy, etc...

...and those comparisons are likely warranted. But, the point is that you if you then object to transableism, you must also object to transgender. It's then not just dysphoria, but dysmorphia, and criticisms of GD on grounds of things like anorexia are suddenly vindicated. As one so-called investigative journalist who recently blocked me on Twitter would suggest, it's extreme individualism wrapped up in transhumanism.

[Athanasius]

There seems to be a similarity between this disorder and other body image distortions like anorexia. People simply have a distorted perception of themselves, and cannot be convinced of that fact. I also wonder if there is not some similarity to the attention-seeking motivation that characterizes Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

I remember one specific case of BIID several years ago, in which a sighted woman named Jewel Shuping, obsessed with being blind, damaged her eyes with drain cleaner. I think she was featured on the Dr. Phil show.

As I was just saying to Oscar. Yes, although I believe in the case of BIID it's been shown that there are structural brain issues that cause the brain to not recognise parts of itself, and for whatever reason, that result in BIID. There's similar research into GD:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30084980/

What I can say for myself is that I'm not dysmorphic or suffering BIID, and understand myself as acting to address a medical concern rather than that I'm acting out human diversity, or something.

[Oscar_Kipling]

As the resident trans person let me affirm that this is nonsense, pushed by TRAs (trans rights activists) who hate dysphoric people, or mentally ill people who need rigorous therapy and competent medical care. BIID needs to be recognised for what it is (a physiological self-perception issue) and not "diversity" or something to be celebrated.

I first heard the term in 2008-9-ish in a discussion about about the David Cronenberg film "Crash". You seem to have a deeper understanding of the roots and usage of the term, could you share any information/sources on the history/development of this term especially regarding it as a creation or rhetorical tool of TRA's? Additionally information that illustrates the motives of the TRA's that you suggest here would also be useful.

It originated from transabled.org, which died out in 2013. You can use the Way Back machine to see some of the content, e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20130202061859/http://transabled.org/.

It wasn't a rhetorical tool of TRAs, but is a misguided attempt by people with BIID to latch onto the 'trans' umbrella. 'Transabled' has nothing to do with transsexuality or gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, of course, but apparently 'trans' is a magic word to gain acceptance and legitimacy and 'vulnerable member' status ('trans' being the only such group you can voluntarily join). It's then pushed by TRAs as just more human diversity.

You could review:

- https://daily.jstor.org/the-complicated-issue-of-transableism/
- https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-diabolic-logic-of-transabelism/

There are plenty of articles between 2011 - 2015 that examine the 'updated language' and phenomena more fully. That it's just catching on now, again, is typical. The sinister nature of it, of course, is that it more broadly abuses the notion of "identity", and attempts to draw comparison between amputation or inflicted disability with something like SRS, mastectomy, etc...

...and those comparisons are likely warranted. But, the point is that you if you then object to transableism, you must also object to transgender. It's then not just dysphoria, but dysmorphia, and criticisms of GD on grounds of things like anorexia are suddenly vindicated. As one so-called investigative journalist who recently blocked me on Twitter would suggest, it's extreme individualism wrapped up in transhumanism.

this is interesting. I'm still not convinced that the "trans" part was a sinister or wildly misguided attempt to smuggle in their ideas with transgender support, because as you've said, there are some completely honest parallels there without needing to dishonestly pretend that they are the same things... like LGBT rights and civil rights. I'm not very well informed about the development of the term so, i'm happy to drop this for now.

I do really appreciate the links, but I'm definitely skeptical of the gospel coalition's take on the whole matter, so lets you and I talk. Outside of the fact that there are plenty of people identifying as literally anything for attention or due to other disorders or influences, and setting aside the transhumanist or human diversity advocacy aspect...what is it that fundamentally distinguishes GD and BIID from each other?

[Athanasius]

As the resident trans person let me affirm that this is nonsense, pushed by TRAs (trans rights activists) who hate dysphoric people, or mentally ill people who need rigorous therapy and competent medical care. BIID needs to be recognised for what it is (a physiological self-perception issue) and not "diversity" or something to be celebrated.

I first heard the term in 2008-9-ish in a discussion about about the David Cronenberg film "Crash". You seem to have a deeper understanding of the roots and usage of the term, could you share any information/sources on the history/development of this term especially regarding it as a creation or rhetorical tool of TRA's? Additionally information that illustrates the motives of the TRA's that you suggest here would also be useful.

It originated from transabled.org, which died out in 2013. You can use the Way Back machine to see some of the content, e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20130202061859/http://transabled.org/.

It wasn't a rhetorical tool of TRAs, but is a misguided attempt by people with BIID to latch onto the 'trans' umbrella. 'Transabled' has nothing to do with transsexuality or gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, of course, but apparently 'trans' is a magic word to gain acceptance and legitimacy and 'vulnerable member' status ('trans' being the only such group you can voluntarily join). It's then pushed by TRAs as just more human diversity.

You could review:

- https://daily.jstor.org/the-complicated-issue-of-transableism/
- https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-diabolic-logic-of-transabelism/

There are plenty of articles between 2011 - 2015 that examine the 'updated language' and phenomena more fully. That it's just catching on now, again, is typical. The sinister nature of it, of course, is that it more broadly abuses the notion of "identity", and attempts to draw comparison between amputation or inflicted disability with something like SRS, mastectomy, etc...

...and those comparisons are likely warranted. But, the point is that you if you then object to transableism, you must also object to transgender. It's then not just dysphoria, but dysmorphia, and criticisms of GD on grounds of things like anorexia are suddenly vindicated. As one so-called investigative journalist who recently blocked me on Twitter would suggest, it's extreme individualism wrapped up in transhumanism.

this is interesting. I'm still not convinced that the "trans" part was a sinister or wildly misguided attempt to smuggle in their ideas with transgender support, because as you've said, there are some completely honest parallels there without needing to dishonestly pretend that they are the same things... like LGBT rights and civil rights. I'm not very well informed about the development of the term so, i'm happy to drop this for now.

I do really appreciate the links, but I'm definitely skeptical of the gospel coalition's take on the whole matter, so lets you and I talk. Outside of the fact that there are plenty of people identifying as literally anything for attention or due to other disorders or influences, and setting aside the transhumanist or human diversity advocacy aspect...what is it that fundamentally distinguishes GD and BIID from each other?

There's a few things. We could consider:

- Dysphoria results from incongruence in one's self-understanding, resulting in something like a compulsion to correct that incongruence by attempting to integrate/live as the opposite sex.

- BIID results from brain/structural issues where the body doesn't recognise parts or features of itself, leading (for some reason) to rejection.

- Dysphoria causes intense distress until addressed; BIID is more of an intense desire/fixation without the distress.

- A person with genital dysphoria, for instance, can live with that for life; a person with BIID would be consumed with removing the appendage.

- Even in the case of SRS, there's a repurposing (ugh, roughly) vs. outright removal.

- In the case of dysphoria, it's a healthy state --> healthy state. We could imagine that it's possible some reproductive issue did cause an error of development. It's a stretch.

- In the case of BIID, it's a healthy state --> disabled/injured state. We couldn't imagine a reproductive issue where a blind person was born healthy, or without a leg, arm, etc.

- GD seeks to replace; BIID seeks to remove.

- BIID is very clearly a mental illness; dysphoria isn't clearly a mental illness (though dysphoric people can be mentally ill from comorbidities). This will be a hot take to some, but I'm dysphoric and not mentally ill. I know mentally ill dysphoric people.

- Both are probably neurological issues to do with the body/brain mapping, self perception, etc.

[Oscar_Kipling]

There's a few things. We could consider:

- Dysphoria results from incongruence in one's self-understanding, resulting in something like a compulsion to correct that incongruence by attempting to integrate/live as the opposite sex.

- BIID results from brain/structural issues where the body doesn't recognise parts or features of itself, leading (for some reason) to rejection.

- Dysphoria causes intense distress until addressed; BIID is more of an intense desire/fixation without the distress.

- A person with genital dysphoria, for instance, can live with that for life; a person with BIID would be consumed with removing the appendage.

- Even in the case of SRS, there's a repurposing (ugh, roughly) vs. outright removal.

- In the case of dysphoria, it's a healthy state --> healthy state. We could imagine that it's possible some reproductive issue did cause an error of development. It's a stretch.

- In the case of BIID, it's a healthy state --> disabled/injured state. We couldn't imagine a reproductive issue where a blind person was born healthy, or without a leg, arm, etc.

- GD seeks to replace; BIID seeks to remove.

- BIID is very clearly a mental illness; dysphoria isn't clearly a mental illness (though dysphoric people can be mentally ill from comorbidities). This will be a hot take to some, but I'm dysphoric and not mentally ill. I know mentally ill dysphoric people.

- Both are probably neurological issues to do with the body/brain mapping, self perception, etc.

Yes, agreed, all of those points seem to be worth considering. To the first and second bullets, from my admittedly shallow research into the topic it is not my understanding that a neurological/biological cause for BIID is settled although there have been a few studies that indicate a relationship with reduced activity or mass of several brain structures. Similarly, there is research that points to, but does not definitively define some physiological causes for GD. All that is to say that I think it would be accurate to say that BIID has been even less researched than GD , but they both have some evidence that supports physiological causes. From my perspective it would be fair to say that there are differences in the hypothesized physiological causes but I do not think that it can be determined that having physiological roots is something that distinguishes one from the other.

On a similar note with points 3 and 4 I cannot say that I am convinced that BIID is defined in part by a lack of distress accompanying their fixation/desire, considering that the alternate term for BIID is BID (body image dysphoria) which insinuates distress right there in its name...Not to mention that distress is included in much of the diagnostic language. The idea that a person with BIID would be necessarily consumed with removing the appendage whereas the person with genital dysphoria wouldn't seems to be contradicted by transgendered folks that were unfortunately unable to live with their bodies. How a person with any sort of dysphoria reacts would depend quite a bit on that person and many other factors (i.e fulfillment in other areas of their lives, support system, personality). it seems unwarranted to assert that one group would be wholly capable of living with it while the other is wholly incapable.

I think we see eye to eye for the most part on the idea that at its heart BIID removes ability, I mean it's right there in the Transableism label, it is about creating disability where there was formerly ability. I suppose some people make similar arguments about SRS; How it breaks previously operative genitals and creates functionally deficient simulacra of other genitals. However here I think that unlike BIID this reduced functionality is more of a technical limitation than an aspiration, I'd bet that many if not all transgender people that underwent SRS would have gotten 100% functional genitalia and reproductive systems if that were an option. So anyway we agree, and I think this is the main difference that sticks out in my mind.

Could you explain what it that makes BIID a mental illness and what makes GD not a mental illness? Anyway I hope I didn't yammer too much, this is a legit interesting topic for me so thanks for discussing it with me.

[ProDeo]

Makes me wonder if in essence this is just another form of attention seeking.

Much of it is narcissism and assorted unaddressed mental illness.

From my wife side we had an aunt in our family, she deliberately left her left arm down and as such the arm swell and swell to enormous proportions and it was a horrible sight. She got the attention and sympathy she was after but what she really needed was therapy. She could have simply saved her arm by moving it up but at some point it was too late and the arm was amputated.

[teddyv]

It wasn't a rhetorical tool of TRAs, but is a misguided attempt by people with BIID to latch onto the 'trans' umbrella. 'Transabled' has nothing to do with transsexuality or gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, of course, but apparently 'trans' is a magic word to gain acceptance and legitimacy and 'vulnerable member' status ('trans' being the only such group you can voluntarily join). It's then pushed by TRAs as just more human diversity.

I almost wish I owned a Pontiac Trans-Am. I'd be pretty popular.

[Oscar_Kipling]

is no one actually interested in talking about the transable or BIID topic?

[Oscar_Kipling]

It wasn't a rhetorical tool of TRAs, but is a misguided attempt by people with BIID to latch onto the 'trans' umbrella. 'Transabled' has nothing to do with transsexuality or gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, of course, but apparently 'trans' is a magic word to gain acceptance and legitimacy and 'vulnerable member' status ('trans' being the only such group you can voluntarily join). It's then pushed by TRAs as just more human diversity.

I almost wish I owned a Pontiac Trans-Am. I'd be pretty popular.

or, I know you are making a joke, but I do think it would be interesting to discuss "trans" prefix, its popularity, history, use. I think it would be really interesting  to find out if people here think that "trans" is being attached to things in order to siphon some legitimacy / popularity / sympathy / momentum from the transgender community in order to proliferate other ideas like BIID. I mean there is probably some of that I'd bet. Personally I think that trans people and the concept of transgender are being used much more frequently as a wedge to open the LGBT debate back up again. I watched it become less and less effective for folks to cast gay people as boogey men, pardon, boogeypeople that wanted to do something gross and damaging to your children...Like could you imagine a fear mongering argument where a gay but cis 18 year old hs senior kid that showers with your tender impressionable 14 year old freshman kid gains the kind of traction that a trans person using the same restroom does today? Trans people can still get cast as sex monsters along with drag queens and pedophiles as all basically the same thing. The folks that want to can get the foot back in the door for moral panic about all sorts of sexual deviants that have carte blanche in our society that is well into the throes of moral decay.  So, idk if you think that other weirdos are glomming onto the trans community so they can poke out their eyes  or replace their legs with carbon fiber prosthetics because it's hip, cool and popular like a trans am used to be (more of a 280z man myself), but I think that there is at least some faction of the anti's that are in the business of magnifying the spotlight and attention on the trans community because it actually benefits their aims and goals of either using moral outrage and panic for general cynical power, or to win hearts and minds to the cause of sloppily squeezing the T's along with the LGB's back into the shadows.