Theorizing the Role of Sex Educators in the Resistance and Reification of Epistemic Injustices Related to the Sexual Expression of People with Intellectual Disability.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Sarah L Curtiss, Melissa Stoffers
{"title":"Theorizing the Role of Sex Educators in the Resistance and Reification of Epistemic Injustices Related to the Sexual Expression of People with Intellectual Disability.","authors":"Sarah L Curtiss, Melissa Stoffers","doi":"10.1007/s10508-024-03039-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People with intellectual disability face a variety of epistemic injustices-systems of knowledge and educational inequality-related to their access to sex education and perceptions of their sexuality. Sex educators are in a position to address these injustices; however, they may not be fully aware of their own epistemic ethics. Furthermore, there is little theoretical understanding of how sex educators provide instruction within an environment that exhibits hostility toward the sexual expression of those with intellectual disability. This grounded theory study of interviews with 58 people who taught sex education to people with intellectual disability sought to understand the role of educators in perpetuating and resisting epistemic injustice by utilizing sex education to either facilitate or restrict the sexual expression of people with disabilities. We identified four micro-contexts: centralizing capacity to consent, emphasizing risk, desexualizing (through) sex education, and acknowledging gender identity. In each micro-context, we explore mechanisms of how educators were either allied in support of autonomy (person-centered values, expertise, access to curricular resources, self-advocates as teachers and partners, subversiveness, and de-problematizing normative sexual behavior) or reified sexual stigmas (fear of sexual abuse and sexual perpetration, conscripting to asexuality, the paternalistic service system, and complex ethical dilemmas) in the context of hostility to sex education and sexual expression. These findings have implications for promoting prosocial sexual expression and access to sex education for people with intellectual disability.</p>","PeriodicalId":8327,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-03039-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People with intellectual disability face a variety of epistemic injustices-systems of knowledge and educational inequality-related to their access to sex education and perceptions of their sexuality. Sex educators are in a position to address these injustices; however, they may not be fully aware of their own epistemic ethics. Furthermore, there is little theoretical understanding of how sex educators provide instruction within an environment that exhibits hostility toward the sexual expression of those with intellectual disability. This grounded theory study of interviews with 58 people who taught sex education to people with intellectual disability sought to understand the role of educators in perpetuating and resisting epistemic injustice by utilizing sex education to either facilitate or restrict the sexual expression of people with disabilities. We identified four micro-contexts: centralizing capacity to consent, emphasizing risk, desexualizing (through) sex education, and acknowledging gender identity. In each micro-context, we explore mechanisms of how educators were either allied in support of autonomy (person-centered values, expertise, access to curricular resources, self-advocates as teachers and partners, subversiveness, and de-problematizing normative sexual behavior) or reified sexual stigmas (fear of sexual abuse and sexual perpetration, conscripting to asexuality, the paternalistic service system, and complex ethical dilemmas) in the context of hostility to sex education and sexual expression. These findings have implications for promoting prosocial sexual expression and access to sex education for people with intellectual disability.

性教育工作者在抵制和纠正与智障人士性表达相关的认识论不公正中的作用理论化。
智障人士面临着各种认识论上的不公正--知识体系和教育上的不平等,这与他们获得性教育的机会和对自身性行为的看法有关。性教育工作者有能力解决这些不公正问题;然而,他们可能并不完全了解自己的认识论伦理。此外,对于性教育工作者如何在一个对智障人士的性表达充满敌意的环境中提供指导,理论界也知之甚少。这项基础理论研究采访了 58 位为智障人士教授性教育的人士,试图了解教育者在利用性教育促进或限制残障人士的性表达,从而延续和抵制认识论不公正方面所扮演的角色。我们确定了四个微观情境:集中同意能力、强调风险、(通过)性教育去性化以及承认性别认同。在每个微观背景下,我们探讨了教育者如何在敌视性教育和性表达的背景下,结盟支持自主性(以人为本的价值观、专业知识、获取课程资源、作为教师和合作伙伴的自我倡导者、颠覆性、规范性行为的去问题化)或重塑性污名(对性虐待和性侵犯的恐惧、无性征召、家长式服务体系、复杂的伦理困境)。这些发现对促进智障人士的亲社会性表达和获得性教育具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
13.20%
发文量
299
期刊介绍: The official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research, the journal is dedicated to the dissemination of information in the field of sexual science, broadly defined. Contributions consist of empirical research (both quantitative and qualitative), theoretical reviews and essays, clinical case reports, letters to the editor, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信