English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The United Nation (‘UN’) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘CRPD’ or ‘Convention’), while addressing some intersectionalities, does not explicitly mention sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). However, the practice of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘CteeRPD’ or ‘Committee’) has developed significantly over the past years to include the intersections of disability and SOGIESC into the discourse. This paper examines these developments from a queer intersectional perspective based on the document analysis. We analysed a range of documents adopted by the Committee itself, as well as shadow reports submitted to the CteeRPD by civil society, to map the challenges existing at the intersections of disability and SOGIESC. The results of the analysis demonstrate a quantitative shift in the CRPD intersectional discourse, but also qualitative changes in the positioning of the subject – the one living on the intersections of disability and SOGIESC, related structural powers and hierarchies. Based on the analysis, we use a quadruple framework to show how this subject is defined, described, protected and embraced by the CteeRPD, what concrete features of this positioning has been developed already, what gaps still exist and how they can be addressed.

Intersectionality and the CRPD: an analysis of the CRPD committee’s discourse and civil society advocacy at the intersections of disability and LGBTI