On another side of the gender dysphoria trans-community we have the transable, transabled or ‘Transableism’. The transabled group can be defined as physically healthy people who desire to be disabled in some way. They believe they should have been born with a disability like blindness, deafness or missing a limb. The correct medical term for transabled people is Body Integrity Dysphoria (also referred to as Body Integrity Identity Disorder, Amputee Identity Disorder and Xenomelia, Foreign Limb Syndrome, formerly called apotemnophilia)
Mentally unstable people who seek the attentions that comes with being severely disabled and wanting to be served by others all the time is not a type of behavior that should be encouraged.
The transabled phenomena isn’t a new one. However it has always been known as a sub-culture group of society known as ‘disability pretenders‘. These can be further categorized into subgroups:
- abasiophilia — the desire for people who limp and/or use leg braces, walking sticks, crutches, walkers or wheelchairs
- acrotomophilia — the desire for amputees
- apotemnophilia — sexual arousal based on the desire to be or appear as an amputee.
- attraction to disability — the broad range of sexualized fascinations projected onto disabled people
- disability devotee (“dev”) — one who desires disabled partners
- medical fetishism — a sexualized interest in observing medical practice and receiving medical treatment
- Munchhausen’s syndrome — a psychological disorder whose sufferers feign illness and/or self-harm
- Body integrity identity disorder (“transabled”) — a disorder whose sufferers believe they should have an impairment. Sometimes seen as analogous to gender dysphoria
And while Body Integrity Dysphoria might not be a new phenomenon, it is alarming the rapidity at which it is becoming an all-too-common trend.
As Natural Society puts it:
This very unfortunate psychological ailment, which more people seem to be suffering from, is not so surprising given the current state of affairs throughout some Western societies. Particularly in the nations of Germany, Switzerland and Canada are these types of psychiatric issues cropping up more and more.
Those societies which promote a pharmaceutical drug culture do seem to have the highest incidence of the ‘transabled’ phenomenon. The ensuing mental and emotional predicament appears to create a conducive environment for this type of aberrant behavior to occur.
Once upon a time, patients who repeatedly tried to hurt themselves (or had thoughts of seriously injuring themselves) would be put into straitjackets or into a padded room, or both. Certainly those approaches had their drawbacks as well. Nonetheless, they were designed to protect incorrigible and self-mutilating patients from themselves.
Nowadays, there are those in the healthcare delivery system who would acquiesce to the wishes of those who are quite obviously suffering from mental derangement. They believe elective dismemberment or elective paralysis or elective blinding ought to be legitimate medical options to complete the ‘necessary’ process of becoming ‘transabled.’
Body identity Disphoria is a very serious and very real issue that should be given a lot of ethical discussion both, from the point of the individual’s well-being, to how it would affect society as a whole should the procedures become subsidized by the health care system.
While it is certainly foolish to speculate as to what exactly goes through one’s mind to want to lose a limb or the sight, so they can become ‘whole‘ as disabled is but anyone’s guess. However, if we argue that, according to DMS-5 and other prominent authorities within the psychiatric community, self-mutilation is a mental disorder, why do we allow for travesties such as mutilation of the sex organs in order to become a different sex than the one assigned at birth?
People who believe that hacking off a limb or becoming deaf is acceptable, should be given the right to vote?
There are individuals born with a disability, and there are those who become disabled through not fault of their own. We subsidized those individuals with our taxes to make sure they are not wanting in their every day needs. We do that because society has a moral duty to those individuals.
Do we also allow the same courtesy to individuals who become physically disabled on their own free will? Should society fork the bills of their procedures to become disabled? And if we do, do we also fork through our taxes the cost of their medical care and any other benefits they might receive as disable people?
If we all want to sit at home and be disabled, who is going to pick up the corn?