I agree, I should be very self-suspicious and am trying to be. I'd hope sarcastically referring to my "apparently burning need to problematise dialogue about prejudice" was a fair indication of introspective suspicion.
That said, I do have an interest in the way that the communities of discussion to which I'm exposed by my association with sqbr and others operate, and it's fair enough that they can be, are, and should be subject to critical perspectives both from insiders and outsiders, delivered appropriately.
Of course that means trying to avoid derailing - I have a bad instinct to try to turn every discussion about prejudice into a discussion of the practices of discussions about prejudice, and I'm doing it again here. Sorry.
Continuing to derail re transhumanism at your prompting:
"I don't think I understand transhumanism at all. From my perspective, it has arisen out of a faulty definition of what being human is, and this article, or what I've read of it so far, isn't changing my impression at all."
I would've thought the article's reference to a definition of it as "the idea that humans can use reason to transcend the limitation of the human condition" was clearly stated, if not straightforward.
From a transhumanist perspective (under this definition) all levels of ableness (or dually, all "limitations of the human condition) are changeable, and not as intrinsic to the individual as they are typically thought to be. Therefore this perspective can catalyse new ways of thinking for and about people with "disabilities".
Transhumanism is strongly associated (though perhaps unfairly) with utopian thinking in which issues like physical disability fall by the wayside and we all become "luminous beings". A nice but unconvincing dream.
But it's clear that as far as technology does change capability (see innovations in prosthesis, bionic eyes and ears, laser corrective surgery, developmental surgery etc.) it has a huge impact on the factors underlying ablist prejudice. As you mentioned previously, your spectacles provide you with equal access.
Re: transhumanism
That said, I do have an interest in the way that the communities of discussion to which I'm exposed by my association with sqbr and others operate, and it's fair enough that they can be, are, and should be subject to critical perspectives both from insiders and outsiders, delivered appropriately.
Of course that means trying to avoid derailing - I have a bad instinct to try to turn every discussion about prejudice into a discussion of the practices of discussions about prejudice, and I'm doing it again here. Sorry.
Continuing to derail re transhumanism at your prompting:
I would've thought the article's reference to a definition of it as "the idea that humans can use reason to transcend the limitation of the human condition" was clearly stated, if not straightforward.
From a transhumanist perspective (under this definition) all levels of ableness (or dually, all "limitations of the human condition) are changeable, and not as intrinsic to the individual as they are typically thought to be. Therefore this perspective can catalyse new ways of thinking for and about people with "disabilities".
Transhumanism is strongly associated (though perhaps unfairly) with utopian thinking in which issues like physical disability fall by the wayside and we all become "luminous beings". A nice but unconvincing dream.
But it's clear that as far as technology does change capability (see innovations in prosthesis, bionic eyes and ears, laser corrective surgery, developmental surgery etc.) it has a huge impact on the factors underlying ablist prejudice. As you mentioned previously, your spectacles provide you with equal access.