This article explores the intersection of asexuality and disability by means of a qualitative study with asexual-identified disabled persons. The article discusses the ways in which the asexual community is normatively constructed. Although figured as disabled-friendly, the findings suggest that this is conditional on the denial of any causal links between asexuality and disability, and that this can be thought of in terms of the construction of the ‘Gold Star’ asexual. The article also examines how coming to identify as asexual is constrained when one is already marked as ‘disabled’, and more broadly argues that alternative identities or orientations are reliant on a pre-existing ‘normality’. Looking at asexuality in tandem with disability also allows us to interrogate the asexual subject of existing asexuality research and writing, and uncover the implicit privileges being assumed.

Gender diversity is seemingly prevalent amongst asexual people. Drawing on qualitative research, and focusing on agender identities in particular (which have received very little sociological or queer scholarly attention), this article explores why this might be the case. I argue that previous explanations which centre 1) biologistic understandings of sexual development, or 2) the liberatory potential of asexuality, or 3) psycho-cognitive conflict, are insufficient. Instead, I offer a sociological perspective in which participants' agender subjectivities can be understood as arising from an embodied meaning-making process where gender was understood to fundamentally be about sexuality. I emphasise the importance of understanding asexuality and agender in the broader structural context, as particular subjectivities were shaped and sometimes necessitated in navigating hetero-patriarchy.However, these entangled understandings of (a)sexuality and (a)gender were sometimes rendered unintelligible within LGBTQ+ discursive communities, where there is often a rigid ontological distinction between gender and sexuality arising from histories of misrecognition and erasure. The article is therefore an attempt to complicate this distinction, as I argue that already-invisible subjectivities may be made even more invisible by this distinction. The article serves as an illustration of the need to empirically explore meanings of the categories 'gender' and 'sexuality', and the relationship between them, rather than siloing them in our methodological and conceptual frameworks.Asexuality, which has been dubbed the "invisible orientation" (Decker 2014) is arguably becoming less so. Not only can we find the existence of some asexual characters in mainstream entertainment (Todd in the Netflix series Bojack Horseman, Liv Flaherty in the UK soap Emmerdale), but these characters are also portrayed as complex and nuanced, rather than one-dimensional stereotypes. The US clothing retailer Hot Topic sell Asexual Pride tshirts (Hot Topic 2019), and asexual terminology such as ace and aromantic were added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2018 (OED 2018). Asexual is increasingly included in official governmental research (e.g. in the findings from the UK government's NationalLGBT survey in 2018) and there are plans to include asexual in the 2021 UK census (ONS 2018). We may well be seeing an asexual 'tipping point'.There has also been a small but growing body of scholarship on asexuality for a decade and a half, ranging from the positivistic, to textual explorations, to the sociological. Not only is asexuality of interest as a social phenomenon in and of itself (especially given the increased visibility demonstrated above), but those working in asexuality studies have pointed out that should be interested in asexuality because of its potential to inform our understandings about society and social organisation more broadlyfor example, about the compulsory nature of sexuality (Gupta 2015); about the possibilities for conducting relationships ...

No abstract

Queer youth are positioned as 'at risk', and queer youth in religious settings and communities are seen as especially vulnerable due to the anti-LGBT sentiment assumed to inhere there. Governmental funding has recently been directed towards challenging homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in English faith schools specifically, as the political discourse of 'British values' comes increasingly to include an ostensible commitment to LGBT rights. It is in this context that we present qualitative research with queer religious youth who attended both faith and community schools in England. The lived experience of queer religious youth in faith schools is much more multi-faceted than is commonly represented-this was also the case for pupils in (non-faith) community schools. Rather than locating the problem within religion, attention needs to be paid to the heteronormativity and gender binarism that structures the entire educational experience. Furthermore, in engaging with the experiences of queer youth who are also religious, we explore the ways in which religion can be mobilised as a form of support, and more broadly argue against the tendency to see queer youth exclusively in terms of their queerness.

This article contributes to and extends critical scholarship on the philosophy and practical application of creative methods. I suggest that claims commonly made regarding the ‘potential’ of creative methods can be (re)organised as claims relating to (1) epistemology, (2) embodiment and (3) empowering participants. I evaluate these claims through the contextual lens of a research project on ‘non-sexualities’ wherein I incorporated a creative element (creative notebooks) into the research design. Through analysis of research artefacts and observations of the research process, I reflect upon how the notebooks were particularly good for ‘getting at’ embodiment and had a clear epistemological value in facilitating expressions of complexity, contradictions and ambiguities. However, I also discuss my scepticism with regard to claims made about the empowering potential of creative methods, as the notebooks potentially worked to reproduce certain power dynamics rather than eliminate them. I argue that class in particular needs to be given more attention in critical accounts of creative methods.