Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Another topic in the FTM section spurred my memory if this disorder BIID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder)

You might have heard of it, some people feel like a limb shouldn't be there or feel that they should walk with a gait or be paralyzed (though it's mostly associated with wanting an amputated limb).

So, I was just wondering, I still haven't completely developed thoughts on this, but... what do you think?

I would love for more studies to be done on this, I wonder if it could somehow be related to gender identity disorder? I saw a transwoman on TV once who had cut off both her legs because she also had BIID. I wonder if the same part of the brain is affected....

Why are their treatments for us, but people with BIID can't go to a doctor and get their own leg chopped off? Why is it ethical to cut off breasts of FTMs or the downstairs parts of MTFs, but we can't safely remove the limbs of other people who are in a state of dysphoria as well?

The other thread that made me think of this got into discussing fetishes, and I think some things are considered a fetish in our society simply because it is more taboo (and the word "fetish" is often misused and applied); so is it more acceptable to treat transsexuals because it is more understandable to the public to wish to be another gender since it's normal to be a female or male, while wanting/needing to be disabled is "abnormal" because disability is seen as a negative thing?

Personally, I think people with BIID need some kind of treatment as well since they're in just as much mental pain as us and I wouldn't want to see someone die of gangrene or something because they tried to hack off their own limb, just like I don't like to see FTMs get gangrene from binding too tightly.

I don't know... I think it could be an interesting discussion, no one get mean please.  :)

QuoteWhy are their treatments for us, but people with BIID can't go to a doctor and get their own leg chopped off? Why is it ethical to cut off breasts of FTMs or the downstairs parts of MTFs, but we can't safely remove the limbs of other people who are in a state of dysphoria as well?

It's not about safety, it's about the ethics of it. Doctors try to follow the "First Do No Harm" rule, which means if a part is healthy, then it shouldn't be cut off.

There was a time when sex-change operations were difficult to get because of this...combined with really poor mental health techniques ("OMG! He's just crazy! Lock him up in a padded room!!") meant that legitimate remedies were not done.

And of course, one does wonder about the mental health of people who want to radically change their bodies...let's say a dr. does comply, but a year later the person says, "OMG! I was just crazy! Couldn't you TELL?!? I'm'a'gonna SUE!!" And "modify" means not only GRS and amputations, but also full limb/body tattoos, major piercings, scarring, etc. Most people see these activities as evidence of some mental disorder, true or not.

That creates problems, not only for the patient and his/her friends/family, but also for the doctor, and his/her friends/family. That's part of the reason therapy is (or was) required prior to GRS, and the "real life" requirement.

I'm sure if they ever do decide to pursue voluntary amputations, therapy and a form of RLR will be necessary.

I agree that a desire to be disabled is perhaps a little more taboo than a desire to transition from one gender to another. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I'm all about giving people the freedom to live their lives the way they want, up to the point that it affects other people negatively. I feel as though allowing someone to have a leg or an arm amputated for purely aesthetic purposes could cause harm to both the amputee and the people around them.

While they might feel better about their body image afterward, they're going to have a harder time getting around and doing things in daily life. I'm guessing that a missing limb constitutes some disability credit from the government, and I can imagine that they wouldn't want to have to give that to more people than they absolutely had to.

I'm not out to say that all amputees are completely dependent on the people around them, but I certainly do think that it could cause dependency.

Quote from: Beth Andrea on March 07, 2013, 08:27:01 PM
It's not about safety, it's about the ethics of it. Doctors try to follow the "First Do No Harm" rule, which means if a part is healthy, then it shouldn't be cut off.

There was a time when sex-change operations were difficult to get because of this...combined with really poor mental health techniques ("OMG! He's just crazy! Lock him up in a padded room!!") meant that legitimate remedies were not done.

And of course, one does wonder about the mental health of people who want to radically change their bodies...let's say a dr. does comply, but a year later the person says, "OMG! I was just crazy! Couldn't you TELL?!? I'm'a'gonna SUE!!" And "modify" means not only GRS and amputations, but also full limb/body tattoos, major piercings, scarring, etc. Most people see these activities as evidence of some mental disorder, true or not.

That creates problems, not only for the patient and his/her friends/family, but also for the doctor, and his/her friends/family. That's part of the reason therapy is (or was) required prior to GRS, and the "real life" requirement.

I'm sure if they ever do decide to pursue voluntary amputations, therapy and a form of RLR will be necessary.

Yeah I agree it's because of their ethical rules and not safety that they won't cut off people's limbs; but it seems like they're breaking those rules if they cut off healthy breast tissues to releave one disorder (or identity) but won't remove another body part for another disorder. But the same fears of people just being crazy and will sue later is applicable to trans people too. I've heard of people who regret later on getting SRS or going on hormones; or like you mentioned about the full body tattoo people. Doing a RLE seems difficult, I wonder how'd they do it? I guess using crutches or a wheelchair for those who feel as if their leg(s) shouldn't be there, but it seems more difficult for someone who feels like an arm shouldn't be there.

Quote from: democration on March 07, 2013, 08:37:26 PM
I feel as though allowing someone to have a leg or an arm amputated for purely aesthetic purposes could cause harm to both the amputee and the people around them.

While they might feel better about their body image afterward, they're going to have a harder time getting around and doing things in daily life. I'm guessing that a missing limb constitutes some disability credit from the government, and I can imagine that they wouldn't want to have to give that to more people than they absolutely had to.

I'm not out to say that all amputees are completely dependent on the people around them, but I certainly do think that it could cause dependency.

It's not for aesthetic purposes they do it, it's almost like the "born in the wrong body" argument trans people have. They feel like they have an extra limb that shouldn't be there, or legs that work that shouldn't. It's alien, like our "chesticles". Most people with amputations aren't dependent on others, well unless it's like all four limbs gone or whatever. I take the train with someone without any arms (he can't even use prosthetic arms) and doesn't need any help getting his ticket out, etc. Most people with BIID don't want all four limbs gone, so just using a crutch or a wheelchair or a prosthetic arm isn't like having to be confined to an assisted living facility or anything.

I think the disability qualifications would get people upset, especially in countries that give out a certain monthly allowance for disabled folks (like I hear Canada does...), but people with BIID don't do this because they want a disability credit. Could there be an exception where if someone voluntarily has a limb or limbs amputated that they don't qualify for disability?

Quote from: LearnedHand on March 07, 2013, 09:29:11 PMIt's not for aesthetic purposes they do it, it's almost like the "born in the wrong body" argument trans people have. They feel like they have an extra limb that shouldn't be there, or legs that work that shouldn't. It's alien, like our "chesticles". Most people with amputations aren't dependent on others, well unless it's like all four limbs gone or whatever. I take the train with someone without any arms (he can't even use prosthetic arms) and doesn't need any help getting his ticket out, etc. Most people with BIID don't want all four limbs gone, so just using a crutch or a wheelchair or a prosthetic arm isn't like having to be confined to an assisted living facility or anything.

I think the disability qualifications would get people upset, especially in countries that give out a certain monthly allowance for disabled folks (like I hear Canada does...), but people with BIID don't do this because they want a disability credit. Could there be an exception where if someone voluntarily has a limb or limbs amputated that they don't qualify for disability?

Aesthetic was the wrong word to use, my mistake.  :-X

I agree, though -- more or less. I don't see that it should be a terrible issue if they disqualify themselves for disability, though it would certainly be unfortunate if something happened later on down the road where they were injured and really needed it. The laws could be in their favor, I suppose, but it seems like things always require a little bit of fighting for before people get everything they want and need.

QuoteI would love for more studies to be done on this, I wonder if it could somehow be related to gender identity disorder? I saw a transwoman on TV once who had cut off both her legs because she also had BIID. I wonder if the same part of the brain is affected...

I do know that with people who have "multiple personalities", if one of the personalities is, say, a 5 year  old, the "child" will sometimes remark how large his/her body is...I know in my own case, I'm about 5' 8", and have bonked my forehead numerous times because of a lack of height-awareness (my physical body is 6').

There is a thing called "depersonalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization)" which is the self-awareness of one's body.

I know with TS people, there are actual parts of the brain which are different from cis-people (MTF = cis-women, FTM = cis-men). Not sure if there'd be something like that for BIID people, since there are no differences between able-bodied cis-people and born-handicapped people.

I think it's a different issue entirely, though with some interesting parallels. I've never heard of this disorder before, it seems to go against the most basic of human psychology, self preservation. Even suicidal people have a quiet subconscious desire to not die even in the throes of it all. It's decidedly self destructive to amputate perfectly healthy limbs, very different from the surgery we desire. Those of us transfolk who desire SRS want healthy functioning bodies to make our biological sex match our gendery. I don't think it's ethical for a doctor to amputate healthy limbs but I guess as long as they aren't going to get in trouble for it some docs will go under the whatever makes you happy approach







Edited for profanity

Quote from: Beth Andrea on March 07, 2013, 10:43:00 PM
I do know that with people who have "multiple personalities", if one of the personalities is, say, a 5 year  old, the "child" will sometimes remark how large his/her body is...I know in my own case, I'm about 5' 8", and have bonked my forehead numerous times because of a lack of height-awareness (my physical body is 6').

There is a thing called "depersonalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization)" which is the self-awareness of one's body.

Ah that's really interesting, I don't think I've heard of that before.

Quote from: Darkflame on March 08, 2013, 04:13:43 AM
It's decidedly self destructive to amputate perfectly healthy limbs, very different from the surgery we desire. Those of us transfolk who desire SRS want healthy functioning bodies to make our biological sex match our gender.

And that's a good point.

Personally, I don't have a problem with anyone altering *their own* body in any way they see fit, assuming that they don't intend to have it affect everyone around them beyond having to acknowledge it. I feel like it'd be sort of hypocritical if I did...

because internally I feel as if I have no gender, and would desperately want a hysterectomy and full oophorectomy except for the "doctors won't remove healthy body parts" thing. I could lie and claim to be FTM and try to get a letter that way, but I'd be *profoundly* uncomfortable with that idea (it's appropriation and lying!), and otherwise, I have had doctors literally laugh when I asked if it was possible.  Sure, that system is internal, but it absolutely feels like it doesn't belong to me and I want it GONE, considering that it causes a (literal, diagnosed, medicated) anxiety disorder some months when hormones spike. Ironically, I could get a breast reduction easily enough and even covered by insurance, but not what I truly want. Anyway, I'm well aware that most people and doctors would consider that to be unnecessary mutilation of a "healthy woman" (UGH) and akin to having a limb removed.

Modern technology certainly does tread on moral quicksand sometimes...

Quote from: democration on March 07, 2013, 08:37:26 PM
I'm all about giving people the freedom to live their lives the way they want, up to the point that it affects other people negatively.

So if your mum/dad/friend/partner/etc. hates your desire to transition and says the decision affects her negatively, one should not transition?

Quote from: democration on March 07, 2013, 08:37:26 PM
I'm not out to say that all amputees are completely dependent on the people around them, but I certainly do think that it could cause dependency.

Transitioning can cause you to lose your job and become dependant. Should we not be allowed to consider that because we might end up depending on those around us?

Wow.

I am surprised by some of these comments. I don't know anything about this condition, in fact the only time I recall hearing anything about it is a vague memory from a TV program where the person did not feel the limb was their own, and it wanted it gone. As I recall it was a perfectly normal person who had some other problem that caused it.

Hmmm, seems I don't know very much about it, but I am guessing that nobody else here does either.

We should deny them support? They are just crazy?

You sound like the people who attack you, with the arguments that they use about you.

How about reserving judgement until you understand the issue? Like you would expect those to do before judging you.

Quote from: Steph21 on March 08, 2013, 11:45:02 AM
Transitioning can cause you to lose your job and become dependant. Should we not be allowed to consider that because we might end up depending on those around us?

Discrimination is the only thing stopping someone trans from working.
Once discrimination is done for, someone trans will be capable of working like anyone else.

Cutting an arm or leg off literally stops you from working in most places because you physically cannot do the work anymore.
Nothing too do with discrimination.

I'm on neither side, I just had to add this.

Quote from: Jayr on March 08, 2013, 12:03:41 PM
Discrimination is the only thing stopping someone trans from working.
Once discrimination is done for, someone trans will be capable of working like anyone else.

Cutting an arm or leg off literally stops you from working in most places because you physically cannot do the work anymore.
Nothing too do with discrimination.

I'm on neither side, I just had to add this.

Actually, as somebody who has used a walking aid every day for years, I have to say almost all the issues I have had from it have been attitudinal rather than practical.

Besides, the post that I was replying to, was this:

'I'm all about giving people the freedom to live their lives the way they want, up to the point that it affects other people negatively. '

The fact that you lost your job from discrimination doesn't mean that it does not negatively affect those around you, so the point still stands.

I was talking about your reply too this.

I'm not out to say that all amputees are completely dependent on the people around them, but I certainly do think that it could cause dependency.

Quote from: Jayr on March 08, 2013, 12:21:10 PM
I was talking about your reply too this.

I'm not out to say that all amputees are completely dependent on the people around them, but I certainly do think that it could cause dependency.

I know, but the dependency point was only raised in the context of it being a negative impact on those around them.

Besides, what does it matter what causes the loss of job, unless we are deciding whether somebody is allowed to body modify, based on - not just the impact it will have on them - but the cause of that impact.

Its very dangerous to say that people with less limbs or any other disability are worth less to society.

You seem to have your views set in stones.

No point for me too keep bringing up valid points,
because you will simply dismiss all of them.

Quote from: Jayr on March 08, 2013, 12:57:08 PM
You seem to have your views set in stones.

No point for me too keep bringing up valid points,
because you will simply dismiss all of them.

My views are rarely if ever set in stone. That doesn't mean I will fold and agree with you, just because you make a point lol. I also believe in the validity of my points but I am not going to say that there is no point talking to you if you don't take them on.

I just think that you shouldn't, *without knowing them or their story*, call these people broken and condone the shutting off support to them for their choices.  It also smarts a little to me personally the association of worth to a persons ability to be able to use all their limbs. Yes, they may 'elect' to lose their limbs, but GRS is an elected loss. Yes, it may affect some of the jobs that they can choose to take up, but to deny them support based on this does not seem right. We do not know their story or how necessary it was for them to get rid of the limb. For some of us, the transition was a last chance before ending their life. We do not know these people, they could be the same.

Yes, that is just my opinion, and yes, if you want to give me a response, I will consider it! :-)

Quote from: Steph21 on March 08, 2013, 11:51:35 AM

Hmmm, seems I don't know very much about it, but I am guessing that nobody else here does either.

I actually know at least 2 people with BIID, that's how I knew about the disorder.

I was just looking back for the post that really made me think I  must respond,  but it's not here anymore so I assume it's been removed or I am being blind.

I will paraphrase  then,  basically it said they are are all messed up in the head and broken minds.  It made other points too.

Perhaps as you know people like like this you can tell us,  are they otherwise normal people or crazy?

Could I ask why should they have benefits removed? To prevent people removing their limbs just to get benefit? It seems like the only reason and one that you would have to crazy to choose,  in which case they wouldn't be approved anyway,  no?

Otherwise they're completely normal, one I know lives in Canada, is married, has a job, friends, and a couple of kids. She lives as if she was paralyzed and uses a wheelchair. I think she wrote a piece for this website: http://transabled.org/ (http://transabled.org/)

i wasn't saying they shouldn't get benefits, it was just a question to see if that was a main reason why people would be opposed to people "becoming disabled" by their own means; I could def see opposition from ignorant people who would think people would do this just because they're lazy and don't want to work and would rather live in section 8 housing and get a $750 check every month. The people with BIID I know think that they shouldn't get benefits from it though. I am presuming it's like an informed consent sort of thing, and just merely sitting in a wheelchair all day doesn't come along with all the other complications that actual paralysis would, and not all amputees qualify for disability either. I guess unless BIID is considered a qualifying disablity, which it isn't as far as I know, that in itself wouldn't get someone disability. I don't think anyone would think it's okay to strip them entirely from all benefits present and future, like if someone cuts off a leg and then a few years later gets in a car accident and breaks their neck or their stump gets massively infected from an ill-fitting prosthetic and causes some complications, yeah they should def get benefits then.

I really didn't intend the OP to be to debate whether or not they're crazy or should or shouldn't do what they want, I am not really good at fully explaining myself in opening posts and really try to avoid starting new topics unless it's completely vanilla. I was more interested in people's thoughts on whether it's less accepted in society because it's more "taboo" than trans is. Like I think an average non-trans person could understand gender issues more than they would with disability/amputation issues, and that would be why it's more accepted to be transgendered than it would be to be transabled. Whatever is "weird" or "weirder" is crazy or more crazy, and therefore is seen as less legitimate.

The longer one studies the human condition...the stranger it gets.

That's one reason I like cats and dogs.

Quote from: Steph21 on March 09, 2013, 03:47:13 AM
Could I ask why should they have benefits removed? To prevent people removing their limbs just to get benefit? It seems like the only reason and one that you would have to crazy to choose,  in which case they wouldn't be approved anyway,  no?

I wouldn't put it past some people.  It's always on the news here about Mrs Chav with twenty children, never held down a job and getting a 8 bedroom house off the state.  If you're too lazy to work and willing to go through child birth several times (more kids=more benefits) then you would probably be stupid not to chop off a couple of limbs if you could.  Less painful and you don't have to feed them.

[/cynicism]

I don't see a problem with it if it doesn't effect anyone else and they have done some sort of RLE like the woman on transabled.org who uses KFOs to impair her leg mobility and discover that it really does make them feel better then it's up to them.  We should be responsible for our own bodies.

EDIT:  This is quite a good page on the subject, written by a woman who is both trans and has BIID, on transabled.org: http://transabled.org/thoughts/a-comparison-between-transsexuality-and-transableism.htm (http://transabled.org/thoughts/a-comparison-between-transsexuality-and-transableism.htm)

So,  I'll be honest - the comparisons being made between this and being transgender bother me. I feel like this is something completely unrelated, and I think associating the two together sorta delegitimizes what it means to be transgender.

Being trans is a physical medical disorder. It is the structure of the brain and body that is out of sync.  It is a physiological problem. Body Integrity Identity Disorder, as according to the wikipedia page, is a psychological problem. They are completely different from the core.

We are constantly fighting the notion that being trans is a mental illness of some sort. Grouping it with an actual mental illness is not helpful.

I am not judging those with BIID in the least. I think they should do what they want with their bodies, and I feel for the difficulties in their lives.

Quote from: Steph21 on March 08, 2013, 11:51:35 AM
Wow.

I am surprised by some of these comments. I don't know anything about this condition, in fact the only time I recall hearing anything about it is a vague memory from a TV program where the person did not feel the limb was their own, and it wanted it gone. As I recall it was a perfectly normal person who had some other problem that caused it.

Hmmm, seems I don't know very much about it, but I am guessing that nobody else here does either.

We should deny them support? They are just crazy?

You sound like the people who attack you, with the arguments that they use about you.

How about reserving judgement until you understand the issue? Like you would expect those to do before judging you.

This is an *opinion* based topic.Everyone is speaking their opinions on it and does not mean they are *judging* anyone.there is a difference between *i think/feel* and *you are! this is!* you are currently judging others on their opinion.MY opinion on it is the same as most of the people here.If i knew about this,would it effect their everyday life? i know that such things can leave one mentally broken and paralyzed but can one say *to be able to hold my children,walk alone,feed myself* is not more important then getting the help needed so you can retain these things? in my opinion no.i would rather get the help i need,knowing something was wrong then lose so many things about my lively hood.but thats me and about the support issue,no i do not feel they should receive support for something that can be avoided.in my opinion it is a simple way to gain support in ways one normally couldnt or wouldnt.it pretty much promises ones lack of dependency.i have sever mental issues and thus i can not work but IF i could and had a choice to fix it,i would in a heart beat but this is how i was born.BTW i do not see anyone negatively in anyway and people do/live as they feel is right.good luck to anyone with this issue but that is my opinion alone.