Sexuality & Disability is a journal dedicated to the psychological study of sexuality and gender identity in persons with disabilities. In the most recent issue, a study appeared that aimed to examine the presence of sexual orientation and gender identity in people with developmental disabilities. Only a small group of individuals, 32, were surveyed, and it was not a representative group, since all participants had been referred to a clinic for behavioral or emotional problems. However, the study authors still say that their findings may provide insight that can be useful for further research into the sexual and gender identities of people with developmental disabilities.
The main findings of the study were that over 80% of study participants were heterosexual, followed by about 9% bisexual or questioning, and 3% homosexual. There were some discrepancies between the three different measures of sexual orientation – self-reporting, a questionnaire about current sexual fantasiess and desires, and a sexual history questionnaire. Specifically, there was a significant discrepancy between self-identification and current desires on the one hand and sexual history on the other. To me, this could indicate that people had established their sexual identity through experimenting.
Another interesting finding was the high prevalence of gender identity disorder among this group. Four of the 32 people surveyed, could be diagnosed with GID. Two of them were assigned female at birth, which the authors say signals that developmentally disabled persons may be more likely to be trans. Well, in fact, the authors say that GID may be more common among developmentally disabled people, as if that is something different from being trans. I am not sure whether that is Kenneth Zucker’s cissexism or simply the way medical journals word such things.
Of concern to the authors are factors that might influence sexual orientation in people with developmental disabilities, such as poor sex education and abuse. For example, on the sexual history questionnaire, individuals may have included abusive relationships when identifying their sexual encounters. Of course, it is important that abuse be identified and that people be educated adequately, but I am a little concerned about the possibility that it could be a way to influence people’s sexual self-identification, which would be erasing part of their identitities.
Reference
Bedard C, Lan Zhang H, Zucker KJ (2010), Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation in People with Developmental Disabilities. Sexuality & Disability, 28(3):165-175. DOI: 10.1007/s11195-010-9155-7.
Generally, anything involving Zucker and Gender I just assume to be full of crap. I’ve got no respect for a “psychologist” who thinks it’s better to torture a child than let a boy play with something that isn’t GI Joe. No problem with trauma-based systems, but in what world is dissociating healthier than wearing a skirt? It might be how journals word things- but it also wouldn’t surprise me if he helped get it that way, since he seems fairly powerful in that.
*clears throat*
Do you know what the other ~8% were? (I think I’m doing the math right…)
Sexual abuse is pretty rough when it comes to sexuality. And I honestly don’t know how being abused effects sexuality (although it can). But it still seems wrong that people often use it as if being abused makes it so that NO sexuality of the person is valid- you can’t be asexual, you can’t be into kink or anything else, if you like sex “too much” it’s a “defense mechanism”, etc.
Sexual abuse is horrible- but does it really make it so that a person is incapable of giving consent (or not allowed NOT to give consent, in some cases) to anything else? (I’m pretty sure my experiences didn’t do that) Because it really seems like that’s what people seem to think.
I really wish that we could do studies into sexuality and gender without it being used to break it apart, or only being aimed at non-”normative” sexualities or trans genders.
Did it mention what the developmental disabilities were?
Clearly, as Chartreuse Flamethrower says, anything involving Zucker and gender is certain to be busted and probably useless.
I’ve worked at a group home for adults with DD and one thing that struck me during my time there was how gender norms were pushed on clients. Female clients had pink/purple/pastel clothes and males blue/green/red clothes, even when the client couldn’t or didn’t express a preference. Their rooms reflected gender norms. Female clients were often asked about their boyfriends and teased about them(not really in a mean way, but still not something I was comfortable with). All this really bothered me- there was never any discussion of sexuality, safe sex, or the fact that a client might be gay. Clients were assumed to be cis-gender. It was almost surreal to me, after attending a college with a people with a mix of sexual orientations and gender IDs. I wonder how many of the clients were gay/trans, but didn’t have the words to express it, because it wasn’t discussed and heterosexuality was assumed. I also wonder how the staff (small, conservative town) would have reacted to an openly gay or trans gender client.
When I was receiving treatment from mental health, they wanted to ignore that I was quite happily a gay man and they didn’t want me to bring it up to the other
inmatespatients. This was only one of the things that made mental health treatment less than a positive thing.I am so tired of psychiatrists trying to claim that most homosexuals have suffered abuse and that’s why they’re gay. The psychiatrist Dr. Drew in my country is a prime example of this. Science simply doesn’t bear this out.