Sexual citizenship through resistance: a movement that centers disabled women’s voices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the discourses that shape disabled women’s sexual subjectivity. I wanted to see how disabled women’s understanding of themselves as sexual is socially influenced. I held a focus group and individually interviewed five self-identified physically disabled women about their sexual lives. They shared detailed stories of personal experiences and societal influences. The main social influences that were present in the women’s stories were ableism, sexism, and resistance; the focus of this article is resistance. Resistance discourses challenge mainstream notions of disability and sexuality and combat the oppression that ableism and sexism can create. It is important work to highlight these resistance narratives; they are often overlooked in society. Diverse social understandings of disability and sexuality are needed, and it is important that they come from disabled people. This research seeks to make space for disabled perspectives in the interest of sexual inclusivity and sexual citizenship for disabled women. Points of interestThis research explores the social influences that affect the sexual lives of physically disabled women.Disability and sexuality are social constructs, and disabled women’s sexuality is often misunderstood, misrepresented, or disregarded altogether.Disabled women are sexual beings and their rights to sexual citizenship are important to consider.The social influence of resistance is a significant finding in this research; it encompasses sexual empowerment, liberation, pride, solidarity, and reclamation – it is opposition to oppression.Resistance plays a vital role in shaping disabled women’s sexual lives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".