Empire of Normality, Robert Chapman

The Minority Body, Elizabeth Barnes

Some things I have read that speak to this:

Disability and Political Theory: An Introduction, Barbara Arneil and Nancy Hirschmann

Disabling Barriers, Enabling Freedom, Nancy Hirschmann

Cripistemologies, Merri Lisa Johnson and Robert McRuer

Feminist, Queer, Crip, Alison Kafer (especially the introduction)

"race is a social construct": a bit harder to swallow for some but still reasonable

Sexual Hegemony by Christopher Chitty

Friend of mine just gave me this book that looks quite interesting.

Snippet from the back cover: “Only by grasping sexuality as a field of social contention and as and as the site of class conflict, Chitty contends, can we embark on a politics that destroys sexuality as a tool and as an effect of power and open a front against the forces that keep us unfree.” Commentary also refers to it as a “modernized History of Sexuality” (Foucault).

and this is the context it was written in

like it's not just about liberals "reversing" things that creates the idea of transgressive sex being somehow necessary for everyone, from the beginning Rubin was convinced that because csa was being somewhat legislated against (in specific circumstances, while otherwise receiving social and cultural protection on part with heterosexual privilege) meant it was marginalized and worthy of rescues. the liberals Chen criticizes really aren't inverting anything, Rubin was already creating a hierarchy that favored alleged transgressive sex above all else when she referred to child abusers as victims of a "witch-hunt" and defended a mother who made csem of her son.

Nowadays, proud gay men do not ground their identity in their loneliness, lovelessness, hopelessness, isolation, and sentimentality. Quite the opposite. We fashion a gay self (to the extent that we do) by proudly affirming a common, collective gay identity, claiming this gay identity openly, visibly, unashamedly, and communally, constructing on that basis a shared culture and society–full of opportunities for emotional and erotic expression–and thereby attaining to a healthy gay sexuality, defined by our eroticization of other gay men as gay, and ultimately crowned by the successful achievement of a relationship. And, by the way, we don’t want to be reminded that ‘twas not ever thus.

…“No gay man could possibly regret the trade” of pre-Stonewall gay abjection for post-Stonewall gay pride, [scholar D.A. Miller] acknowledges. No gay man “could do anything but be grateful for it–if, that is, it actually were a trade” (26; italics added). The problem, it turns out, is that instead of winding up in triumphant possession of a gay pride and freedom that we can wholeheartedly call our own, we have constructed a gay identity that actively represses both the pathos and the pleasure of those residual queer affects that we prefer to think we have liberated ourselves from and that we claim have simply vanished from our consciousness. Instead of transcending the secret shame and solitary pleasures of our sentimentality, as we would like to think, we have assiduously closeted them.”

Not really — Dworkin's Right Wing Women is about why women collaborate with conservative men for their own patriarchal subordination.

I'm talking more about women who inhabit privileged intersections of identity and end up taking their frustrations with the patriarchy out on vulnerable populations of men and boys.

The mother who abuses and grooms her son who is a child because of her frustrations with her husband, the white woman who refuses to engage with theory around the racialization of gender and views men of color and white men's places in the patriarchy as interchangeable, the cis woman who tries to position trans men as her oppressor and is violently transphobic towards them just because they are men despite her status as cis, an abled woman who takes advantage of or abuses disabled men because they are unable to stand up to her physically or emotionally, etc. etc. etc.

An intersectional lense is meant to be a tool to discuss the lives of marginalized people complexly and discuss the ways multiple systemic power structures that impact, oppress, and marginalize us simultaneously — not do math to figure out who is the most oppressed.

Kimberlé Crenshaw has talked extensively about how she dislikes the way intersectionality is misused to just add up different marginalizations and say "this demographic is the most oppressed group to exist". That is not the purpose of intersectionality in an academic context, nor is it the purpose of intersectionality in an applied context. It's a tool for analysis. A tool for understanding. A tool for giving language and voice to complex systemic issues while treating marginalized people like their entire selves.

It's not a tool to go "this demographic has it the worst ever" online to attempt to shut down other marginalized people.

Call me whatever names you wish, but I think this is a much better (and healthier) attitude than “anyone under 18 should never be allowed to see any sexual imagery ever”

(For reference: this was at the Tom of Finland exhibition, containing actual, queer, kinky af pornography. There were definitely some young people there, perhaps in their late teens. There was even a parent with their baby who was probably too young to understand anything at all. And guess what, all those people are probably going to be fine.)

but if you look at pregnancy in the light of disability justice, it clears up so much. there are so many types of accomodations that should be accessible for pregnant people, so many changes to the system and ways to implement them.

it also brings to light the ableism pregnant people often face while pregnant, from the frequent claims of "lazy pregnant people" to the lack of accessibility and options to deal with side effects like pain and loss of mobility.

And maybe it's different in other countries but in Germany, at least, almost every medicine (that isn't outright forbidden during pregnancy because we know it harms the unborn) comes with a warning that there haven't been studies with pregnant women so you should ask your doctor before taking the medicine. Which is just all kinds of shit because for quite a lot of those medicines we have decades of experience and we know what to expect (and how safe they are to take).

which is total bullshit! not all pregnant people chose to be, and. even if it were something one chooses 100% of the time. abled people choose potentially disabling things all the time (alcohol, drugs, smoking, sports even if not extreme etc can all lead to becoming disabled, think of football brain injuries)

why is it different for pregnancy? it's a condition that makes everything hard to do, and can very easily become a lifelong disability even after term (complications both physical and mental exist)