Navigating the Impact of Discrimination: Exploring the Experiences of Sex/Gender Minoritised Youth With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth with disabilities often experience disability-related discrimination (ableism). Those with multiple minoritised identities, such as along the axes of disability and gender, arguably encounter more complex forms of discrimination; however, little is known about their experiences. Exploring the experiences of sex/gender minoritised youth with disabilities is important because they often face many challenges within education, health and social services, including discrimination, which could perpetuate inequalities. The purpose of this study was to understand the ways in which discrimination influenced the experiences of sex/gender minoritised youth with disabilities and how they coped with the discrimination they encountered. METHODS: This study involved a qualitative interview design using a purposive sample of 10 sex/gender minoritised youth with disabilities aged 17-25 years (mean age 21.5 years). An interpretive inductive thematic analysis was applied to the interview data. RESULTS: Our findings identified the following themes: (1) intersectional forms of discrimination, (2) negative impacts on physical and mental health, (3) hiding minoritised identities while avoiding unsafe spaces and situations and (4) inadequate social support and opportunities. We found that some youth demonstrated several positive coping strategies for dealing with ableism (Theme 5), which included (1) finding safe spaces through support-seeking and community involvement and (2) self-acceptance and self-advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the pervasive negative impact that ableism has for sex/gender minoritised youth with a disability. Although most youth demonstrated some coping and resilience skills, much further work is needed at a societal and institutional level to address and reduce discrimination while optimising social inclusion.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".