The Intersection of Gender and Disability: A review of discourse, identity, and inclusion.

Abstract

Women, including cisgender and non-cisgender individuals, represent a significant portion of the global population with disabilities, with estimates ranging from 11% to 16% (Masson, 2013). This article explores the intersections of gender and disability through a critical and empirical lens, drawing on theories of social construction, stigma, and intersectionality. Using key findings from contemporary research, it examines the societal, cultural, and structural challenges faced by women with disabilities, while highlighting their resilience and achievements. The aim is to provide a comprehensive and didactic overview of the discourse surrounding disability and gender, informed by ten significant academic studies.

Theoretical foundations of disability

Carol Thomas (2006) distinguishes two primary theoretical approaches in disability studies in England: the materialist perspective, which focuses on economic and social factors, and poststructuralist perspectives, which analyze cultural and discursive constructions. Masson (2013) articulates the dual paradigms of disability: the biomedical model, which emphasizes functional limitations, and the social model, which attributes oppression to societal barriers. These models form the basis for understanding disability as a socially constructed phenomenon.

The subjectivity of disability is further elucidated by Scelles, Ciccone, Korff-Sausse, Missonier, and Salbreux (2010), who argue that perceptions of disability are shaped by individual and societal lenses. This aligns with Becker’s concept of “deviance” (1985), where norms define what is considered acceptable, and any deviation, including disability, becomes a marker of marginalization. Lemert’s “secondary deviance” framework reinforces the idea that societal labeling reinforces the identity of “otherness.”

Stigma and social marginalization

Goffman’s (1963) work on stigma remains foundational, differentiating between “real” and “virtual” social identities. He emphasizes how discrepancies between these identities lead to exclusion. Similarly, Durkheim’s concept of anomie underscores the psychological toll of being perceived as outside societal norms, fostering marginalization and self-exclusion.

Masson (2013) introduces the concept of “capacitism,” a system that normalizes able-bodiedness and marginalizes those who deviate from this standard. This systemic discrimination permeates everyday life, affecting opportunities and reinforcing societal hierarchies.

Gendered experiences of disability

The intersection of gender and disability amplifies the challenges faced by women, who are subject to societal norms of beauty, productivity, and caregiving. Women with disabilities often navigate what Masson (2013) describes as a “triple burden”: domestic responsibilities, professional obligations, and aesthetic labor to conform to beauty standards. This burden is magnified by societal pressures to “normalize” their bodies, as Garland-Thomson (2002) discusses in her analysis of medical interventions aimed at disciplining the “deficient” body.

Pouliot and Rail (2013) highlight the strategies employed by women with disabilities to mitigate stigma. Many adopt dominant discourses of health and beauty, striving to “prove” their capabilities by concealing their disabilities or excelling in fields like sports. Gonzalez, Fuentes-Guerra, Robles, and Castillo (2023) showcase the achievements of Spanish Paralympic female athletes, whose exceptional performance challenges stereotypes but remains underrepresented in media, perpetuating their invisibility.

Reproductive rights and sexuality

Reproductive and sexual rights are fraught terrains for women with disabilities. Garland-Thomson (2002) critiques the stigmatization of their sexuality, often framed publicly in ways that disregard their agency and privacy. Scelles et al. (2010) explore how disability intersects with gender norms, influencing perceptions of motherhood and sexuality. Madiot (2021) observes that societal focus often centers on the sexuality of men with disabilities, neglecting the unique experiences and desires of women.

The medicalization of women’s bodies further exacerbates these issues, with societal and familial projections shaping decisions about reproduction and identity. The stigma surrounding selective abortion and genetic testing, as discussed by Garland-Thomson (2002), highlights ethical dilemmas and reinforces systemic biases against disability.

Towards intersectional feminism

Despite advancements in feminist movements, the intersection of gender and disability remains marginalized. Gonzalez et al. (2023) note that feminist advocacy often overlooks the unique experiences of women with disabilities, perpetuating their invisibility in broader discussions of equality.

Intersectional feminism, as adopted in this review, emphasizes the need to address overlapping systems of oppression. Recognizing disability as both a social and cultural construct necessitates rethinking norms and fostering inclusivity in feminist and societal discourses. Carol Thomas (2006) calls for continued efforts to dismantle barriers to education, employment, and healthcare, while promoting representations that empower rather than marginalize.

Conclusion

Women with disabilities navigate complex intersections of gender, disability, and societal expectations, often overcoming systemic barriers with remarkable resilience. By integrating materialist and poststructuralist perspectives, this review underscores the urgent need for inclusive policies and discourses that address the lived realities of these individuals. Through intersectional analysis, scholars and advocates can better understand and challenge the structural inequalities that perpetuate marginalization, fostering a society that values diversity and equity.

Written by Sophie Alexandra Monseu

March 2023

Bibliography:

Pouliot, A. & Rail, G. (2013). « Voir » la santé autrement : les constructions discursives de la santé de jeunes femmes vivant en situation de handicap visuel. Recherches féministes. 26. 131. 10.7202/1016900ar.

González, A. & Fuentes-Guerra, J. & Robles, A. & Castillo, E. (2023). Análisis de la participación española en los Juegos Paralímpicos desde una perspectiva de género y discapacidad (Analysis of Spanish participation in the Paralympic Games from a gender and disability perspective). Retos. 49. 870-877. 10.47197/retos.v49.99000.

Scelles, R., Ciccone, A., Korff-Sausse, S., Missonnier, S. & Salbreux, R. (2010). Handicap, identité sexuée et vie sexuelle. Érès. https://doi.org/10.3917/eres.scell.2010.01

Villarreal, K. & Kanter, A. & López, C. & Meredith, L. (2019). A Call for an End to Violence Against Women and Girls with Disabilities under International and Regional Human Rights Law. Law review. 10. 118.

Thomas, C. (2006). Disability and Gender: Reflections on Theory and Research. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research. 8. 177-185. 10.1080/15017410600731368.

Masson, D. (2013). Femmes et handicap. Recherches féministes, 26(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.7202/1016899ar

Garland-Thomson, R. (2002). Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. NWSA Journal. 14. 1-32. 10.1353/nwsa.2003.0005.

Madiot, J. (2021). Les effets de l’interaction du genre et du handicap : l’expérience de femmes handicapées en matière de sexualité. Revue française des affaires sociales. 69-86. 10.3917/rfas.211.0069.

Fritsch, K. (2014). Review of Sex and Disability by Robert McRuer & Anna Mollow. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. 3. 1. 10.15353/cjds.v3i1.141.

Plumauzille, C. & Rossigneux-Méheust, M. (2014). Le stigmate ou « La différence comme catégorie utile d'analyse historique ». Hypothèses, 17, 215-228. https://doi.org/10.3917/hyp.131.0215

Becker, Howard S. (1985). Outsiders: Études de sociologie de la déviance. Éditions Métailié. https://doi.org/10.3917/meta.becke.1985.01

Louan, E. (2019). Étiquetage et exécution des peines. L’importance de l’hypothèse des caractéristiques de statut. Déviance et Société, 43, 253-284. https://doi.org/10.3917/ds.432.0253