Cripping sexualities: An analytic review of theoretical and empirical writing on the intersection of disabilities and sexualities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper provides a review of some of the literature addressing the juncture of disabilities and sexualities and invites sociologists to build on this work and take part in this important intersectional field. First, I discuss the central relevance of an intersectional lens for making sense of the unique experiences of queer people with disabilities who are located at the crossroads of various stratified systems. Then, I discuss some of the many unique challenges that queer disabled people face when exploring their sexuality, establishing relationships, and remaining sexual. The invisibility, marginalization, and discrimination of queer people with disabilities in both queer and disability communities are the focus on the third section. The fourth section speaks to current theoretical dialogues between disability studies and queer theory that have illuminated new pathways for theorizing the intersection of disabilities and sexualities, “cripping” sociological theories, and reimagining disability within sociology. As I demonstrate, this literature is growing; however, myriad exciting opportunities for empirical and theoretical sociological exploration remain and I will conclude with a discussion of possible directions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".