Sex research conferences as heterotopias: A queer crip theory perspective on universal design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability rights and LGBT2SQ+ rights are intertwined. LGBT2SQ+ individuals are more likely to be disabled persons and both communities experience societal stigma surrounding their sexuality. Crip theorists posit that ableism, heterosexism, and cissexism are rooted in the same fear of the untamable nature of the body/mind and its potential divergence from social norms. Building from queer theory, McRruer’s crip theory critically examines the concept of compulsory able-bodiedness as another facet of heteronormativity, where heterosexual, cisgendered, non-disabled bodies/minds are centered as the corporeal norm in society. Universal design encompasses the emergence of a society that considers diverse ways of being at conception, rather than creating environments that orbit around hegemonic norms with inclusion as an afterthought. Utilization of universal design is imperative in knowledge production spaces. Sexuality research conferences may be described as heterotopias, a phrase developed by Foucault to describe spaces in society that reside outside the hegemonic bounds of society, and yet mirror it in ways. Sexuality research conferences offer a space to explore themes around sexuality outside of rigid societal conventions. Yet, hegemonic norms may unconsciously seep into these spaces, resulting in the exclusion of disabled, Deaf, and LGBT2SQ+ individuals. Conferences frequently do not incorporate universal design. Utilizing a critical queer crip theory lens, we explore universal design in knowledge production spaces through a literature review and critical analysis of lived experiences with universal design planning of a sexuality research conference (i.e., CSRF, 2019). Translation of findings are summarized with recommendations of inclusive practices for future conferences.
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 | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".