Well in some comments at Questioning Transphobia i've upset a lot of people by supporting the idea that the bigotry of homophobia and transphobia are likely mental ilnesses. Caused by strongly unconciously supressing ones own homosexuality transgenderness or trans-attraction.
I had reached that conclusion because I'd read of studies that over 80% of those strongly homophobic had themselves strong sexual arousal to homoerotic imagery.
Now i was told this is ablist. Indeed perhaps i have made ablist assumptipons. Everyone does tend to accrue some logical fallacies from society so some degree of such is unsurprising and I'm happy to confront challenge and defeat any such i may not realise i have.
On the other hand it's also possible that my conclusion is correct but people understandably do not wish to in any way share a catagory with such people and wish to avoid any taint-by-association from the strongly bigoted being given an umbrella label that also applies to them. I can understand that, the thought that the murderers of Trans people might themselves be members of our own community that lash out from self hate is an unpleasant one in the extreme to me too. Though the DNA evidence on the vibrater in the Angie Zapata trial in that case at least does seem suggestive of this.
The idea of course goes into several hotly contested areas, aside from the emotional aspects, such as what constitutes a mental illness, what influences exist on behaviour, what responsibility people can have for their behaviour if/when we are all not purely reasoning beings 100% of the time which of course throws into chaos a great deal of our legal system which operates under the assumption that we are all 100% under total reasoning calm control of our every action.
One of the issues that seems to be involved is one of behaviour. To suggest that behaviour may be influenced by mental illness seems from my understanding of the comments in response to mine to be considered ablist. I certainly can understand the fear caused by past practices of institutionalisation and abuse of human rights by loss of personal agency that might fuel this. Suffering regular varying severity cognitive impairment myself caused by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome though i can certainly say that my behaviour personally does seem to be effected by my symptoms both in reflexive unconsciouis actions as well as in varying degrees of ability to reason which cn result in very different choices made under similar circumstances just with the variable of severity and type of cognitive symptoms. Something that I find the experience of profoundly distressing.
It seems to me however that to dissmiss effects on behaviour that can result from symptoms or likely ractions to symptoms of disability is itself problematically ablist.
That a dangerous all-or-nothing thinking may be involved and that attempts to avoid the stigmatisation of people with varied cognition as dangerous and needing to be removed from self control may also result in unfairly abandoning people who have behavioural effects a a consequence of their condition to rot in prisons blamed for the effects of their illness or diversity and blamed for the societies failure to cope with the possibility that individuals, all individuals I might add not just those with mental illness or neurologically diverse etc, are not wholly 24/7 in total control of their every act. If there are important shades of grey there the danger could exist that the efforts to avoid stigma and injustice for some if the shades of grey are not acknowledged and considered could result in stigma and injustice for others.
However i'm well aware i could be totally wrong about this. I may in fact have been making very ablist assumptions and therefore reaching warped and incorrect conclusions from the available data. Additionally the available data i have could be critically incomplete or plain incorrect in the first place.
So then the question is what is in error in this and why is it? Is it ablist to consider that unconsciously repressed homosexuality leading to homophobia would be a psychological illness? Is it ablist to consider that mental illnesses and other cognitiove variation could effect behaviour? Or conversely is it ablist to hold people responsible for the effects on their behaviour which may stem from such?
I have no desire to oppress disabled people, being one myself, nor the mentally ill or neurologically diverse. But that doesn't mean i cannot be disasterously wrong either.
Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission - IHRA has made a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission review of the family law system. The submission is endorsed by the AIS Support Group A...
2 weeks ago