Abstract

This dissertation addresses questions of sexual inclusion and epistemic justice, focusing on the claims and interests of intellectually disabled people. Specifically, it asks whether intellectually disabled people have a right to meaning in their sexual lives and whether the right to sexual inclusion is distinct from the right to sex. The project argues that some intellectually disabled people, through no fault of their own, are broadly sexually excluded. Broad sexual exclusion involves more than just non-access to sex; it denies individuals access to (solo and interpersonal) sexually meaningful experiences and excludes them from the sexual life of their society. But what do we really owe to each other as sexual beings? How ought society recognise and provide sexual access, knowledge, and opportunities to intellectually disabled individuals? Grappling with these complex questions, this dissertation draws on script theory and the theory of hermeneutical injustice to diagnose problems in the appropriate social recognition of the sexual agency of intellectually disabled people. Specifically, this dissertation offers a new understanding of ‘sexual scripts’ as diagnostic tools for recognising and resolving certain forms of sexual injustice. It is argued that sexual scripts shape expectations around identity group members’ sexual lives. These scripts can be such that some individuals are not recognised as properly belonging within sexual scenes. Instead, their sexuality and sexual expression are understood as passive or deviant. In response, their sexual lives may become highly regulated and vital sexual epistemic resources may be withheld or corrupted. In addition to perpetuating broad sexual exclusion, this can amount to a sexual hermeneutical or a sex-educational injustice. The revision of desexualising sexual scripts is an integral part of thinking through reforms to education and social policy. So too, revising desexualising scripts can better enable intellectually disabled people to understand their sexual experiences and to pursue meaningful intimate relationships. While individuals can independently challenge and replace unjust scripts, revising scripts can best be achieved through structural changes that promote empathy and social inclusion. Three promising paths for securing broad sexual inclusion are offered, namely sexual and educational integration and ‘liberationist relationships and sexuality education’.