Summary of "Advocating for Sexual Health Equity"

Overview and learning goals

This webinar (part of a sexual health certification tier 2 series) explains sexual health equity with a focus on people with disabilities. It covers ableism, how intersectionality and social determinants affect sexual health, and practical ways to apply an anti-ableist, culturally responsive lens.

Learning objectives - Define ableism and describe its impact on sexual health equity. - Apply intersectionality to understand compounded harms. - Discuss social determinants of health and their impacts on sexual health. - Apply an anti-ableist, culturally responsive lens in practice. - Learn practical tools and resources for advocacy and program design.

Ableism: definition, history, and examples

Ableism: a systemic belief that people with disabilities are inferior to non-disabled people. It appears as overt acts (bullying, discrimination, refusal to hire) and as embedded systemic barriers (inaccessible healthcare, non‑universally designed materials).

“Inspiration porn” (term popularized by Stella Young): objectifying and praising people with disabilities for ordinary activities, reinforcing low expectations and ableist attitudes.

Historical roots - Eugenics (late 19th–mid 20th century) contributed to institutionalization and forced sterilization. - Vestiges persist in policies, medication practices, restricted access to services, and, in some places, ongoing promotion of sterilization.

Common ableist myths about sexuality and disability

Myth: people with disabilities are asexual or don’t experience sexual desire. Reality: people with disabilities experience the full range of sexual feelings and development.
Myth: people with disabilities are hypersexual and cannot control their sexuality. Reality: sex drives vary; lack of education and support—not disability—often leads to problematic behaviors.
Myth: people with disabilities cannot have healthy consensual relationships and are only perpetrators or victims. Reality: with education, support, and access, people with disabilities can have safe, fulfilling relationships.

Models of disability

Medical model: views disability as an individual defect to cure. Consequences include pity, low expectations, restriction of rights, and removal of person-centered decision-making.
Social model: locates disability in physical and social barriers. Solutions focus on changing society (access, accommodations, universal design) rather than “fixing” people.

Example scenario - A person with an intellectual disability seeking a sexual partner: - Medical model assumes inability to consent and may remove agency. - Social model emphasizes supported decision‑making, accommodations, and individualized assessment.

Intersectionality and compounded harms

Intersectionality (coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw): people hold multiple identities (race, gender, sexuality, class, immigration status, etc.) that interact to shape experience and oppression.
People with disabilities who are also members of other marginalized groups face compounded harms (e.g., worse school discipline, delayed diagnoses, greater health disparities).
Data example: Oregon research showed markedly higher suicidal ideation among teens who are both disabled and LGB compared with straight teens with/without disabilities.
Movement tensions: it’s important not to force people to choose between movements; disability justice must attend to racial, gender, economic, and other axes of identity.

Social determinants of health and the socio-ecological model

Health (including sexual health) is influenced by social and environmental factors such as income, geography, education, transportation, food access, and safety.

Examples - Rural people with disabilities may experience isolation, lack public transit and reproductive health resources, and have less access to trans-affirming care.

Socio-ecological model (SEM) levels for planning interventions 1. Individual: knowledge, attitudes, skills (e.g., curricula, sexual health education). 2. Interpersonal: close relationships that influence behavior (e.g., parent-child communication programs, staff training, peer supports). 3. Institutional/organizational: policies, regulations, practices within schools, service agencies, workplaces. 4. Community: local environment—transportation, healthcare access, partnerships. 5. Systems/structures: laws, cultural norms, large-scale campaigns and policy change (e.g., inclusive sex-ed laws, anti-ableism communications).

Disability justice framework (Sins Invalid’s 10 principles)

The webinar presents the 10 principles as guiding actions for disability justice: 1. Intersectionality 2. Leadership of those most impacted 3. Anti-capitalist politics (prioritizing people over profit) 4. Commitment to cross-movement organizing 5. Recognizing wholeness (valuing people as whole) 6. Sustainability (long-term movement building) 7. Cross-disability solidarity 8. Interdependence 9. Collective access (sharing access needs without shame) 10. Collective liberation (inclusive, multi-axis liberation)

Concrete actions and practical recommendations

Organizational and community-level work - Name and address ableism explicitly—both overt and subtle forms. - Provide education and training about ableism; bring in lived-experience experts to train staff. - Center leadership and expertise of people most affected; invite them into planning and compensate them. - Assess whether the people you serve reflect multiple communities/identities; actively reach out to underrepresented groups (non-English speakers, communities of color, LGBTQ communities, etc.). - Make services culturally responsive—translate materials, hire cultural brokers, adapt outreach strategies.

Use the socio-ecological approach - Design interventions that operate across multiple SEM levels (combine individual education, institutional policy change, community access improvements, and systemic advocacy). - Address social determinants that impact sexual health (transportation, clinic access, safety, economic barriers).

Program and practice principles - Apply supported decision-making rather than blanket removal of rights. - Use universal design in materials and services so all can access sexual health information. - Work collaboratively: coordinate the “village” of supports (families, providers, educators, peers).

Attitudes and ongoing practice - Be humble, ask questions, learn from mistakes—don’t let fear of imperfection stop action. - Celebrate people’s strengths, identities, and diverse experiences alongside addressing risks and disparities. - Foster safe spaces and commit to culturally responsive, anti-ableist supports.

Key takeaways / lessons

Ableism deeply shapes sexual health access and outcomes for people with disabilities; both overt discrimination and subtle practices (like inspiration porn) matter.
Intersectionality multiplies harms; programs must intentionally address multiple, overlapping identities.
The social model and socio-ecological frameworks push advocates to change environments, policies, and systems—not only individual behavior.
Disability justice principles center leadership of those most impacted and require cross-movement solidarity.
Practical advocacy combines training, inclusive program design, community engagement, policy change, and centering lived experience.

Speakers and sources featured

Presenters and collaborators - Lindsay Sovay (University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities) — presenter - Shawnya Luther (Among Friends) — collaborator mentioned - Kelly Downey (Kelly Downey Consulting) — collaborator mentioned

Cited individuals and works - Stella Young — coined/popularized “inspiration porn” (TED Talk: “I am not your inspiration, thank you very much”) - Kimberlé Crenshaw — coined “intersectionality” (TED Talk: “The urgency of intersectionality”) - Alison Kafer — disabled writer and scholar (quoted on eliminating disability) - Rhema McCoy McDeed — quoted on intersectional belonging and pressures to “pick a movement”

Organizations, data sources and frameworks - Sins Invalid — “10 principles of disability justice” - OHSU research applying intersectional framework to the Oregon Healthy Teens survey - Oregon Healthy Teens survey (data source) - Foundations of Sexual Health training (referenced training series) - Maslow’s hierarchy (referenced concept)