Becoming disabled by choice, not chance: ‘Transabled’ people

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is her fault if she is treating this this way. Like it was Steve Jobs fault he treated his cancer by doing stuff that didn't actually try to heal the problem instead of going to the right doctor.
So what isn't she doing that she should be doing then?
 
Did the feeling just go away eventually?

Yeah, it did for me anyways. But then people will have various degrees of how bad they get/have this condition. I can see why people would get to the stage that they see they need to remove a limb etc. If it had carried on for me over a period of years then I most probably would have been in the same boat. But I know I wouldn't have the guts to go ahead with removing my left arm. It's why I can't slam the people that have this problem and carry out removing something. People that are taking the piss etc out of this obviously have never had this condition.
 
I might sound like the biggest bigot with this, but here goes: wanting to be a different gender kind of is a mental illness. Not feeling right in your body even when in perfect physical health. Except it's a mental illness that can be fixed by switching genders. If that's what makes them a happier person, go for it. (Terribly sorry for offending anyone but it's just what i think.)

In this case though the way of fixing it is cutting off a limb or something similarily extreme. That should not be the way to go. You go down that road too far you end up letting suicidal people kill themselves because "that's what they want".

If you want to avoid offending people, a good word for this is 'condition' rather than 'illness'. 'Condition' isn't inherently bad or good – everyone has a 'condition'.

Also 'mental illness' as a phrase in itself isn't very tasteful currently.

You're not totally right about how transgenderism works, but this was a good post anyway. Quite a few people on here don't seem to have a great grasp on it.

This transabled stuff is super weird, and I'd be cynical of many cases being thinly-veiled attempts at benefit fraud – but there are a few cases where people's lives seem to be genuinely improved by doing this stuff. If that's the situation, then fair enough. As long as it's not harming anyone else or using up resources that others could appropriately use.
 
Yep, those people with mental conditions sure are disgusting. This shit is really bringing out the best in people.

The reactions here are super interesting. Bodily deformation is one of several universal elicitors of disgust. I think people are being guided heavily by that disgust when forming their opinions of "transabled" people. "Weird" (i.e., statistically uncommon) sex stuff is also one of the universal elicitors, and so it should be no surprise that people have had (and still have) these same reactions to homosexuality and transexuality.
 
Well, he's either alright now, or he's all right now.

1337128730826_zps0b0e7d7f.jpg


Yeah, it did for me anyways. But then people will have various degrees of how bad they get/have this condition. I can see why people would get to the stage that they see they need to remove a limb etc. If it had carried on for me over a period of years then I most probably would have been in the same boat. But I know I wouldn't have the guts to go ahead with removing my left arm. It's why I can't slam the people that have this problem and carry out removing something.

Well, good to know it went away for you.
 
And pray tell me how raising a fuss about this is going to result in MORE funding and not less? Have you missed the way politicians use this sort of thing to attack social benefits, not expand them?

It doesn't have to result in more funding. I just don't want to support these people in their craziness.

Edit: By support I mean encourage.
 
The moment this starts to become something people rally around as the next cause that requires the support of all decent human being is the moment this planet has officially lost its mind.



Yep, it's got a name and everything. Doesn't make it any less of a mental illness.

We don't have enough data since this is a rare condition and there are medical ethical considerations that could lead to non-surgical interventions.

Saying this the next "rallying cause" is a bit of an exaggeration. It completely ignores the issues expressed by neurology.
 
Is it her fault that she has this condition?

No. But just because something isn't your fault regarding this doesn't automatically grant you a right or privilege for it when it's not intrinsically for you.

It's meant for people who have no other choice, who can't walk. She has a greater privilege even if she feels this way, she can walk no problem. That's a privilege they don't have.

The world doesn't owe you anything whether one is at fault or not. You can walk, so you shouldn't have a right to disabled facilities. You can be in a wheelchair and claim to be disabled, that's okay, but don't use disabled facilities. You're not disabled so why use it? If you can walk and use a normal toilet, why use a disabled one? You're already using your body in terms of muscles more so than someone that really can't walk even if you do use a disabled bathroom. It makes no sense.

Wonder where one will draw the line between that and financial/legal fraud with disabilities. Will that be okay too? Just because it's not her fault it's okay to ignore it?
 
No. But just because something isn't your fault doesn't automatically grant you a right or privilege for something that isn't meant for you.

It's meant for people who have no other choice, who can't walk. She has a greater privilege even if she feels this way, she can walk no problem. That's a privilege they don't have.

The world doesn't owe you anything whether one is at fault or not. You can walk, so you shouldn't have a right to disabled facilities. You can be in a wheelchair and claim to be disabled, that's okay, but don't use disabled facilities.

Wonder where one will draw the line between that and financial/legal fraud with disabilities. Will that be okay too? Just because it's not her fault it's okay to ignore it?

I don't even know how you can begin to make a post like this. How much, exactly, do you know about her and how much of this is based on pure speculation?
Just as an example - take someone who suffers from a mental illness. As a result of this illness, it is very difficult for them to undertake normal activities, such as leaving the house, which they should be physically able to do. Should they be given similar support with those activities as a disabled person who is physically unable to undertake them?
 
I love how people with obvious issues with transgender people are taking this is a crusade worth defending so they can themselves create their own narrative, but still go about it in such a salty, dishonest way. "WhAAAT? I see no problem with this? Isnt this what you liberal tumblr people wanted lolz?!". This are people in need of help, not props.

Who are these GAFers you're railing against?
 
I don't even know how you can begin to make a post like this. How much, exactly, do you know about her and how much of this is based on pure speculation?

She says she can walk but is in a wheelchair. Everything I said is in context to that, I don't get your point.

If you can walk, and you're in a wheelchair, why should she have the right/privileged to disabled facilities? She's still not physically disabled. If she broke her back intentionally that's a different argument.

But she hasn't. She can get up and walk. But she says she's disabled. There's a big difference in the privilege to these facilities then. That's my point. If she intentionally broke her back and claims to be transable that's a different argument, that's not the one I'm making at the moment.
 
We don't have enough data since this is a rare condition and there are medical ethical considerations that could lead to non-surgical interventions.

Saying this the next "rallying cause" is a bit of an exaggeration. It completely ignores the issues expressed by neurology.

The issues expressed by neurology seem to show that parts of the brain are either misfiring or not firing at all. Which designates this a form of mental illness.

Now, for anyone to say that this is disgusting and that these people are terrible is just wrongheaded. But at the same time, not every mental illness/identification crisis deserves the support of the masses ("support" here meaning "let's just let them be themselves, consequences be damned"). These people need compassion, sure. But they also need help. Serious mental help.
 
The reactions here are super interesting. Bodily deformation is one of several universal elicitors of disgust. I think people are being guided heavily by that disgust when forming their opinions of "transabled" people. "Weird" (i.e., statistically uncommon) sex stuff is also one of the universal elicitors, and so it should be no surprise that people have had (and still have) these same reactions to homosexuality and transexuality.

It's ironic in a way. People unable to rise above the neurological reaction.
 
She says she can walk but is in a wheelchair. Everything I said is in context to that, I don't get your point.

If you can walk, and you're in a wheelchair, why should she have the right/privileged to disabled facilities? She's still not physically disabled. If she broke her back intentionally that's a different argument.

But she hasn't. She can get up and walk. But she says she's disabled. There's a big difference in the privilege to these facilities then. That's my point. If she intentionally broke her back and claims to be transable that's a different argument, that's not the one I'm making at the moment.
But you're completely oversimplifying it. You may have missed my edited in question, so I'll repeat it:
Just as an example - take someone who suffers from a mental illness. As a result of this illness, it is very difficult for them to undertake normal activities, such as leaving the house, which they should be physically able to do. Should they be given similar support with those activities as a disabled person who is physically unable to undertake them, or are they undeserving because they should be physically able to do them?
Bear in mind this is an example of a person with an actual, diagnosed, rare condition and not someone who's just decided to get into a wheelchair as some sort of lifestyle choice.
 
The issues expressed by neurology seem to show that parts of the brain are either misfiring or not firing at all. Which designates this a form of mental illness.

Now, for anyone to say that this is disgusting and that these people are terrible is just wrongheaded. But at the same time, not every mental illness/identification crisis deserves the support of the masses ("support" here meaning "let's just let them be themselves, consequences be damned"). These people need compassion, sure. But they also need help. Serious mental help.

Well, if a medical board passes on the ethical nature of amputating and can demonstrate a considerable and empirical impact, and the patient is fully autonomous, then it is help.

Those issues are way different than people making up diseases and suffering from delusions. The consequences of major surgery are very real and not to be dismissed and will be taken into consideration for such an extreme surgery.
 
As long as the person understands the consequences and are still able to make a decent living in life, then who cares, it's their body.

People who are a threat to themselves or others should be locked up. I would not feel safe with someone living near me that cut off their own arm intentionally, sorry.
 
I remember on Jerry Springer (or some show similar many years ago) about some guy who cut off his legs because he said he had no use for them.
 
As the nephew of someone who is legitimately disabled, someone who has only wishes to walk normally again, and still has yet to accept after 15 that she is not able to.... Im a bit offended.

However, they do seem to have legit mental problems. I don't know.
 
What you said is totally outlandish. Teenage and elderly drivers are a larger threat to others than the people discussed in the article. According to you threats should be locked up. Or are you being flippant about who gets to be a threat?

Did you click my link? I don't think you did.
 
Can't imagine anyone cutting of their limb, whatever the reason they may give and not suffer from some kind of psychological or neurological defect so this is pretty sad to me.
 
I did. Now try explaining how it is relevant to your point.

I...don't really need to. It's all in the wikipedia article.

Section 5150 is a section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) (in particular, the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act or "LPS") which authorizes a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person suspected to have a mental disorder that makes him or her a danger to themselves, a danger to others, and/or gravely disabled.

There's your explanation.
 
I...don't really need to. It's all in the wikipedia article.



There's your explanation.

Actually the onus is on you to prove relevance of something you submit. Now explain how the part you bolded grants exclusive definition of 'threat' to those discussed in the article instead of everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom