queer

Crip Spaces: Sexual, Fulfilling, And Revolutionary

unsureunderwaterobotLeave a comment

Summary of Sins Invalid

Sins Invalid is a short documentary about a performance team of artists portraying their understanding of sex and disability – as disabled, sexual beings. The team is made up of an entirely disabled cast and crew. Throughout the documentary we see live performances as well as interviews of the crew members. Performances range from dance routines and singing, to poems and short plays. We get to know a bit about the crew and their experience navigating sex as a disabled person in a world that dismisses or fetishizes sex. The documentary celebrates queer, disabled and identities of color through an artistic lens. 

Quotes:

“This is precisely why they (Crip Spaces) are needed: as long as claiming our own ground is treated as an act of hostility, we need our ground” (Smith pg. 274)

This quote ties in well with Sins Invalid and the need for performances like theirs. There are countless sexually-charged shows, but how many include disabled bodies? How many are accessible for disabled patrons? The organization provides an opportunity for the performers and viewers to feel safe, seen, and validated. Not only that, but Sins Invalid provides a space that disabled folks can actually show up to. The moment from the film I am drawn to is at the very beginning when the audio describer/host(?) is explaining who Sins Invalid is and what they stand for. The disabled voice of color celebrates disability and praises the sexual queerness of people. 

“…we might conclude that it (the way disability and sex is misconstrued) is because sexuality is always a site of deep-seated anxieties about normative forms of embodied being” (Shildrick pg. 165)

This quote speaks in tangent with our class conversation about feeling uncomfortable. Sex is not for everyone. Additionally, not everyone has a positive relationship with sex due to lived experience. It is not a good or essential aspect of many lives, however, I will challenge the discomfort for those who come from a cultural/religious place of taboo and anxiety. If sex is taboo for “normalized” bodies, how are we digesting sexuality within disabled bodies? How are our discomforts and anxieties being projected on those who society deems “abnormal”? I am brought back to the scene in the film when the woman who uses two prosthetic legs is on stage while a narrator graphically explains a sexual encounter. I don’t believe this performance is intended to be a dichotomy; her disability is not in opposition with her sexual experience, but rather in tangent. Our discomfort may be projected onto her not having legs, when realistically it may come from a place of insecurity and social taboo regarding sexuality.

Reflection:

In reflection of the readings and this film, I feel at ease, but not complacent. I feel hopeful and full of questions.

 I find the concept of “Crip Spaces” absolutely essential, both in my own life, within my identities and for the well-being of humankind. I hope, moving forward to find spaces for myself that embrace my queerness (in all meanings of the word). Likewise, I hope for disabled spaces, Black spaces, Indigenous spaces, spaces of color and tongue, trans spaces, survivor spaces, and beyond. Shameless plug, an online platform that amplifies these folks is SaltyWorld. I would highly recommend checking it out for all identities.

Rating:

My bias leads me toward a 5/5 rating. Despite the documentary being lower budget I believe it was artistically brilliant, socially impactful, and overall well done. 

RAB: Disability and Queer

LimboLeave a comment

“Queer” by Tim Dean, selected from Keywords for Disability Studies edited by Rachel Adams, Benjamin Reiss, and David Serlin

Summary: 

This piece introduces the historical connections between queer studies and disability studies by first discussing the word queer. Originally, queer was used as a derogatory term to stigmatize not only members of the LGBTQ+ community but those in the disabled community too. Now it is decently well-known as a reclaimed term for empowerment. Dean points out that both queer studies and disability studies challenge the effects of normalization in society when it comes to identity and access. When I say identity, this can include sexual orientation, gender expression, physical appearances, personality itself and much more personal attributes. One example given comes from early activist groups and their slogans. Queer Nation began the chant “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.” And it was common for disability rights organizations to chant “Not dead yet.”  

Then, the term heteronormativity comes into play. Queer itself, is not supposed to challenge or simply be different from heterosexuality, as it challenges heteronormativity. The way Dean explains heteronormativity relates to heterosexuality because it’s based off covert expectations that makes sense of the world. The term is linked to another concept created by Adrienne Rich (lesbian feminist) known as compulsory heterosexuality. Dean claims that compulsory heterosexuality depends on compulsory able-bodiedness. Heteronormativity assumes that a body engaging in sex is healthy and able-bodied to fit the idea of “normal.” Lastly, the concept of “crip theory” is introduced because of its influence from queer and disability studies. Instead of focusing on physical aspects and capabilities of bodies and environments around them this field goes one step further. It wants to take a deeper look at abstract social expectations of what the human body should look like and how someone should behave or perform daily due to heteronormativity.  

Quotes: 

“Indeed, able-bodiedness appears to be even more compulsory than heterosexuality because the former requires the latter” (pg. 144) 

“Queer approaches to thinking about disability and sexuality argue that neither the human body nor its capacities are biologically determined” (pg. 144) 

“In other words, normalization does not exclusively bolster the interests of the so-called normal, since it also puts them at risk” (pg. 144) 

Reflection: 

One thing that I focused on was the idea of normalization. I like how this author framed it, and the references he provided when discussing it piece by piece. While I can’t be positive I fully grasp it from this reading, including Goffman’s take helped. If I’m following correctly, normalization could be a framework that anyone is capable of straying from. That goes to say that anyone is capable of later in life becoming disabled, therefor being stripped of their “normal” social status. I would also argue that while I view a standard normal as being the straight white able-bodied male (and doubtful that will change soon) I think norms can sometimes exist on a continuum. We create new norms and once those are established if you don’t fall in line or can’t make the cut, you are not normal anymore. Normalization is an identity vacuum that exists to continuously eradicate accessibility, education, and mutes every minority.  

Secondly, something this piece reminded me of is the power of taking back hurtful language. Growing up, I vividly remember learning as a young child that “queer” meant weird. It meant different, gross, and was not a word to be associated with. Being a member of the LGBTQ+ community and being able to then grow up and see us take back these terms for empowerment meant a lot. I never knew queer studies and disability studies had this historical, powerful link in that way. Typically, I always emphasize how crucial vocabulary can be, and this author solidified that more for me. It’s not just how we speak about identities but how we don’t speak about them as well. Having learned some bits and pieces of queer history it’s saddening interconnections to other communities like this do not get mentioned or credit.  

Margrit Shildrick: Disability and Sex

unsureunderwaterobot1 Comment

Summary:

The author begins by explaining how the world sees sex: a paradox of too much or too little, of joyful or shameful, of scientific or pleasurable, of normal or not. After giving cultural context, they elaborate on how disability and sex are at play. Disabled folks don’t have access to sexual education which only amplifies a negative stigmas both within and outside of the disabled community. They then go on to explain why sex and disability are such a tricky intersection (quote number 2) and how it stems from a cultural anxiety regarding sex and the body. They break down the Deleuzian model and emphasis the importance of navigating desire opposed to embodiment. The author reinvents the widespread understanding of what sex/sexuality is. Lastly, they explain the relation to queer and disability studies in action. The closing of the chapter summarizes the issues of how sex and disability is viewed and where we can advocate going in the future.

Quotes:

“…disabled people, like everyone else, understand their sexualities in multiple different ways, which do not fit easily with the convenient models of social management” (Shildrick pg. 164)
“If those who count themselves as nondisabled have laregly disavowed the conjunction of disability and sexuality, experiencing what can only be regarded as the “yuck factor” when faced with the realities of sexual desire in all their anomalous forms, then we might conclude that it is because sexuality is always a site of deep-seated anxieties about normative forms of embodied being” (Shildrick pg. 165)
“…understandings of disability and sex have encouraged scholars and activists to confront questions of embodiment, and more specifically, the circulation of desire” (Shildrick pg. 165) *so good*
“…the term “queer” goes much further in being explicitly defined as against all forms of normativity” (Shildrick pg. 166)

Reflection:

I loved this chapter (I know that isn’t great analysis, but I just have to start with that). It went well in tangent with some of the queer theory work I’ve been reading. The author emphasized the need to tear down stereotyped preconceptions of sex (both within and outside the disability community). They provided alternative definitions of sex and embodiment, which I see as a powerful tool for advocacy. In addition to explaining the tangible intersections of sex and disability, they dove into the heady complexities of challenging everything we’ve been taught. I also appreciated the type of language the author used; very plain, with lots of examples.