Becoming “enable" by being disable.
What happens when the real and reality have become a "social construct" and having your body deliberately amputated (transability) still make you as much of a whole physical human being as anyone else.
We always refer to the world outside us from our own subjective space. That, however, doesn't validate that the outer world is entirely subjective. Considering that we are part of the world, the outer world has all sort of gradients of both, objectivity and subjectivity. These myriads of manifestations could clarify many of the assumptions we make about the objectivity of reality.
The outer world could be the outer world of our physical sensations. It could be the outer world of our externalised emotions. It could be the outer world of our manifested thoughts. It could also be the outer world of a reality we have the intent to explore and discover, but about which we don't know much yet.
We are always biased. That is a fact, and yet, being biased means that we affect and shape our perception of the world with our emotions, thoughts and actions. At the same time the world affects and alters us.
We come from a long history of an outwardly outer world becoming an inwardly inner world or rather, a history of an externally outer world leaving its nomadic outings and relocating into an internally outward world, a human body with a mind, continuously claiming its subjective right over what still remains in the outside world.
We do subjectivise the outer world, not only with our minds and emotions, but with our actions, which transform it via technology, with crafts and external artefacts carrying our imprints. Our subjectivity is out there.
The outside world doesn't stop at the doors of the subjective, it doesn't stay purely outside. Every time matter generates energy relatively on its own terms there is a gradient of subjectivity created and a piece of outer matter gets engrained and engraved with subjectivity in that very external world.
There is a huge outer world inside our bodies and also inside our minds. There are layers of depths, but there are also layers of surfaces. We are blueprinted with constant actions outing and externalising our inner worlds.
Those externalising actions are constantly conquering what we call, our inner worlds. Human subjectivity is objectified in its outer world and even there, objectified, it brings about subjectivity externalised.
How can we afford to call the external world a "social construct" as if such world weren't able to exist in itself, indifferent to all our prerogatives to make it our own invention? The external world doesn't exist for us, it doesn't spawn absolutely nor fundamentally from us and, least of all, it doesn't exist because of us.
Then, what happens when we feel in the wrong body and our mind tells us that we are someone else? We might be a man, but our mind tells us we are a woman (transgender). We might be physically and mentally able, but our mind tells us we are disabled (transabled). We might belong to one race, but our mind is telling us we are another race (transracial). We might be a human, but our mind tells us we are a wolf (transspecie).
It would seem accurate to say that our body is telling us something while our mind is telling us something else, but that would mean accepting the traditional mind and body binary division.
In reality our body is the one having two contradictory storage of information in different locations within it. The physical manifestation of our DNA might be telling us something while the neurological mapping of our brain might be telling us something else.
To assume that the biological manifestation of our body should be discarded and taken as a "social construct" because it conflicts with our trans mindset is to assume that our brain and what it thinks are not part of our biological makeup. Such posturing completely misunderstand the intricacies of the biological and it often leads to utter nonsense.
We would probably need to ask if the extreme and rare discrepancy between how our DNA manifests outwardly in our body and how our brain maps such manifestation inwardly is a mental illness or a distinct quality that can, on the contrary, enhance and improve the lives of those affected if we simply put the conflicting elements back into harmony removing their discrepancies.
However, sometimes it truly feels as if we wished that anomalies and exceptional cases of human defects weren't called defects and they were just another healthy variations of human existence.
Today we want to be so inclusive, so multicultural, so compassionate and so tolerant with everything that feels like an anomaly that the underlying moral of such posturing can end up with us wanting that failures were perceived as equal to successes, that all our unintended default defective qualities that make us look abnormal, weak and queer were praised equally and even sometime better than the qualities which in general are considered normal, strong and conventionally healthy.
Queer theory usually has two central leitmotifs, which move the axis of its analysis, the deviant and the normative.
Nature actually could be our best companion to understand both, the deviant and the normative. However, we can't lose sight that using those terms has an anthropomorphic bias.
Whatever might appear as deviant in some species is set so by the very biases of normativity present not only in most humans, but also in other species.
The way bonobos monkeys ease out tensions and resolve social conflicts is through social sexual interaction regardless of gender, age or kinship. This might appear as deviant, but just until we hear what some fishes of the deep get up to.
Deep-sea anglerfish are notable for extreme sexual dimorphism and sexual parasitism of the small male on the much larger female. The male doesn’t look like the same species. He is just slightly bigger than one of her eyes, which are approximately 50 time smaller than her body size. The male will bite onto the female, then fuse his face to her body. He lives the rest of his life like this, releasing sperm when she releases eggs.
Nature has been trying all sort of workable formulas for exchange of energy to perpetuate the living. It has tried reproduction without sex and sex without reproduction as it is the case with cloning and DNA's cannibalism in bacteria.
All these might appear as deviant to us on a first approach, but we know that such behaviours are part of the blueprint (DNA) of those species. If we add to that that the genes of those species also randomly mutate and, in some rare occasions, create anomalies, we can see that they also deviate from their normal makeup. However, these deviant manifestation are not our biases. Those species own to those deviant contingencies.
The deviant in these cases refers to the abnormal mutations and the normative to the continuos copy of their DNA with some mild variations through the passing of generations.
With us, humans, these kind of classifications gain a new twist. The deviant and the normative are not only related to the blueprint of our DNA, but to the blueprint of our culture and heritage and how we can and do deviate from it.
Obviously, culture here can still refer to our biological condition through the dynamic of gene expression in our phenotype. Gene expression might well be the "missing" link between our biological and social make up. Our phenotype expresses how the environment affect us, not only through language, but also at the womb, before birth.
We might need to clarify what is deviant as much at the level of our DNA as at the level of our social context. We might also need to clarify what is normative at both levels.