New Paper: School toilets: queer, disabled bodies and gendered lessons of embodiment

I’m really pleased that this new paper, School Toilets: queer, disabled bodies and gendered lessons of embodiment, written with Charlotte Jones and Lisa Procter, has been published online in the journal, Gender and Education.

Unfortunately, these is an embargo period before I am able to make it open access, but if you don’t have a subscription to the journal and want one of the free author copies then get in touch.


In this paper we argue that school toilets function as one civilising site [Elias, 1978. The Civilising Process. Oxford: Blackwell] in which children learn that disabled and queer bodies are out of place. This paper is the first to offer queer and crip perspectives on school toilets. The small body of existing school toilet literature generally works from a normative position which implicitly perpetuates dominant and oppressive ideals. We draw on data from Around the Toilet, a collaborative research project with queer, trans and disabled people ( to critically interrogate this work. In doing this we consider ‘toilet training’ as a form of ‘civilisation’, that teaches lessons around identity, embodiment and ab/normal ways of being in the world. Furthermore, we show that ‘toilet training’ continues into adulthood, albeit in ways that are less easily identifiable than in the early years. We therefore call for a more critical, inclusive, and transformative approach to school toilet research.


Funded PhD Opportunity: Contextualising bullying and ‘vulnerability’ in the lives of LGBT and/or disabled young people

Sheffield Hallam University is offering PhD funding. I am part of the supervisor team for the below project, along with El Formby and Karen Dunn. Feel free to get in touch with me or El (whose email address is on the linked document) for more information/a conversation before application. We have a vibrant Disability Studies PhD community and it would be great to keep it growing!

NB: the link to information regarding all studentships at Sheffield Hallam is here. Scroll down and click the link under the ‘SIOE’ heading to see all projects specific to ‘education’.

Contextualising bullying and ‘vulnerability’ in the lives of LGBT and/or disabled young people

Anti-bullying practice and advocacy often understands certain ‘types’ of young people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans (LGBT) and disabled young people, as being ‘at risk’ or ‘vulnerable’ to bullying. At the same time, youth work provision and other support services are increasingly subject to ‘targeted’ (rather than universal) work. Such approaches essentialise and individualise ‘vulnerability’ as something ‘within’ a person, rather than a product of socio-cultural-political contexts. Combining our backgrounds in critical disability studies, critical psychology, and sociology, we are interested in proposals that examine and critique the notion of ‘vulnerability’, and how it is constructed and enacted in education and (youth) service provision. The suggested research approach is qualitative, within which artsbased and/or participatory methods could be adopted.

“All of the children needs help”: Disability in the Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds

This is the second of two blog posts on The Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds. For an introduction to the posts, along with the first blog post on hetero and cisnormativity in the programme, click here.

In the main disability hasn’t been a feature in The Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds. This, in itself, is telling. As Katherine Runswick-Cole and Tillie Curran have pointed out in their book Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies although there is a general turn within academic research, particularly Childhood Studies, to understand children as social agents, disabled children are regularly left aside or tagged on as an afterthought (see also this interview where Katherine discusses the book).

An episode of the latest series, however, introduces Daisy, who is a five-year-old wheelchair user. As Daisy enters, Dr. Sam Wass, one of the psychologists who is watching a commenting on the programme, says “it’s going to be really interesting seeing how the other kid’s react”.  This phrase sets the scene for Daisy’s treatment throughout the programme. She appears as a subject under study, from which to gauge the other (non-disabled) children’s reaction to ‘disability’. A theme in the psychologists’ comments throughout the episode is that the other children want to ‘baby’ Daisy, when what Daisy wants is to be understood as a peer and a friend amongst the group. It does indeed seem that this is the case. Yet, there is little attention paid to how adult actors and decisions, have influenced and (co)constructed these reactions through the way that Daisy is spoken of, the tasks that she is involved in and the structural barriers that Daisy faces when navigating the school.

Relational Autonomy and In/acccessibility

One of the approaches used by the programme makers is to break up the general scenes of the children playing with clips of interviews, where a faceless person asks the children questions on topics ranging from what it means to be a grownup, to what love is, and why people have friends. In Daisy’s episode, the children are quite deliberately asked “is there anybody quite different here today?” It is telling that Daisy herself is not asked this question. “Yeah, the one with the wheelchair”, one child replies. Although perhaps the intention here is to allow the children to be curious/ask questions, it in fact treats Daisy, from the outset, as an object of curiosity. The interviewer then goes on to ask, “do you know what disability is?” The child says that he doesn’t know, and the programme moves on. For those of us involved in Disability Studies and disability activism, disability is a form of societal oppression (what a brilliant show this could have become if that conversation had been started).

The Social Model of Disability separates the terms impairment from disability. Whereas impairment is a perceived ‘difference’ in body or mind, disability is the barriers (physical, attitudinal, economic and so on) in society that restrict what disabled people are able to do and be. Following the social model of disability and principles of the Independent Living Movement, disabled people have long argued that nobody – disabled or non-disabled – is truly ‘independent’ (see Steve Graby and Anat Greenstein’s discussion of this here). We all rely on other people, services, and so on in order to go about our lives. Yet, within these systems different people are granted different levels of (relational) autonomy. Disabled people may require different things to non-disabled people in order to live autonomous (or ‘independent’) lives. These include adaptive technology, such a vehicles or wheelchairs, accessible environments and personal assistants (PAs). Having access to appropriate technology and services removes barriers in the lives of disabled people, granting disabled people (relational) autonomy. Being denied access to these barrier-mitigating tools, on the other hand, literally disables people, contributing to marginalisation and oppression of disabled people.

Days at the school in The Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds begin with the children sitting and meeting with the teachers and other children, before going off to play. In the episode featuring Daisy we view a scene where the teachers and children, apart from Daisy, are at one side of the classroom, getting ready to leave the morning meeting. Daisy sits at the other side of the room in her manual wheelchair, seemingly without a PA. A request is made publicly from a teacher to the other children: “Can somebody get Daisy for me?” At this point there is a jostle between the children over who will get to push Daisy, in her wheelchair, out with the others. As a viewer, it seems that Daisy has no say about which child, if any, should be pushing her chair, if she wanted to leave the classroom, or be there in the first place. On viewing that scene, I was compelled to Tweet: “‘Will someone go get Daisy’… will someone get that kid a PA! #slo5yo”. Yet, to my surprise, twenty minutes further into the programme, we see that Daisy has (what is referred to in the show as) a ‘one-to-one helper’ nearby who she can direct to assist her in getting around. By denying her the use of her PA in this scenario, or even asking whether she minded another child pushing her, in this scene we see Daisy publicly stripped of any autonomy.

It is not only the way that Daisy is discussed in the programme, but also the physical environment that disables Daisy. In another scene we see Daisy frustrated as the other children play in an inaccessible sandpit and on a climbing frame. As viewers watch Daisy try to catch the attention of the other children (“Jet, come here”; “Eden”; “Ellie- let’s play mums and dads”), the psychologist analysing the show responds that “Daisy really finds that she’s having to work hard to maintain friendships”. But what if the playground was more accessible, enabling Daisy to play with the other children? What if the children (and adults!) had the role of Daisy’s PA explained to them? Indeed, it is on the accessible roundabout that we see Daisy most easily playing with the other children.

The game that Daisy is most often seen wanting to play is ‘families’. At one point this role-playing includes Daisy telling Ellie-May that she is pregnant. Yet, when a task given to the children involves looking after a simulation baby (a doll that need to be fed, changed etc.), Daisy is nowhere in sight. It may have been that Daisy herself chose not to be part of this task – or indeed a later task involving an obstacle course (which would have needed to be adapted for her) which she’s also not part of. On the other hand, perhaps it is not surprising that Daisy isn’t included in the task with the babies, as I highlighted in my previous blog, the children are given the task in boy-girl couples as if to emulate a (problematic) nuclear family. Disability Studies scholar, Robert McRuer argues that heteronormativity (the assumption and normalisation of heterosexuality) is wrapped up in ideals which value an ‘able body’. Therefore, to include Daisy as a parent in this task, would have broken the guise of heterosexual normality. By not including Daisy as a parent, Channel 4 missed an opportunity to present disabled children as possible future parents.

Daisy gets upset at points through the show. This is understandable within an unfamiliar environment, particularly one in which you face so many barriers. It’s also not unusual, many of the children get upset at some point during the programme (there is a lot of crying in this particular episode!). Yet, Daisy’s upset is treated differently to the crying of the non-disabled children. Sad music plays. One of the psychologists comments, “I think she’s really struggling”. The other children are asked, ‘why do you think that Daisy is upset?’ Despite the problematic backdrop, it’s here that my favourite part in the show takes place, as one child, Starr Rocco, replies, “she needs help, all of the children needs help”. And that is the best understanding of the principles of The Independent Living Movement that we get through the programme. Daisy, just like the other children needs help – and this help includes creating an environment which values and enables her to take part. The adults in the show could learn a thing or two from that 5 year old.

The Wedding Bug: Hetero and cisnormativity in the Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds (the first of two blog posts)

As most people that I’ve spoken to recently will know, I can’t stop watching The Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds. If you haven’t seen the Channel 4 Series, the crux of it is this: take a group of cute 4, 5 or 6 year olds, rig them up with cameras a mics and pop them into a school/playgroup-like setting with a couple of teachers who stay pretty quiet, aside from setting them a few tasks. Every now and then we get a little more information about their family background, etc. The children also have their moves watched and narrated by a group of psychologists.

Watching it is a guilty pleasure – partly as I’m putting aside ethical concerns around gaining ‘informed consent’ from 4 year olds in appearing on such a public platform – but also as I find myself simultaneously cross and fascinated about the way that the programme is set up. Although I can’t deny that I find the antics of the kids cute and funny, my particular interest in this two part blog is how the children’s moves are narrated and analysed. The first blog post discusses the how the show reinforces hetero and cisnormativity, and the second discusses dis/ableism in the programme.

Although I’ve composed these as two blog posts (basically because they were getting a bit long!), hetero/cisnormativity and ableism shouldn’t be thought about as distinct concepts, but, as Robert McRuer reminds us, are wrapped-up and implicated in one-another. I discuss this a bit more in the second blog post (also see my use of McRuer’s work in this paper).

I’ve tried to link only to open access research in the blog. If you have trouble accessing anything that I’ve linked to get in touch and I’ll do my best to help out.

The Wedding Bug: Hetero and cisnormativity in the Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds

Has anyone else noticed that in pretty much every episode of The Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds, there is some kind of proposal/wedding happening?

For the psychologists that narrate the show, the regular ‘weddings’ are often put down to the children mirroring/playing at adult relationships. That it may well be. However, the heteronormativity of the weddings (I’ve yet to have seen one that wasn’t between a boy and a girl) also tells us a lot about what kinds of adult relationships the children have been exposed to. I also want to propose that the compositions of the show itself is inherently hetero and cisnormative.

By heteronormativity, I mean that assumption, normalisation and prioritisation of heterosexuality. By cisnormativity, I mean the assumption, normalisation and prioritisation of cisgender identities (those that identify with the gender that they were assigned at birth) and the gender binary.

Where are the queer families?

It’s long been noted that schools are microcosm of society. Until 2003 in the UK (2000 in Scotland) a piece of policy called Section 28 stated that that a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. This meant that queer relationships and ways of being couldn’t be discussed within educational settings.

Since this time, however, we supposedly have a more diverse/inclusive way of being when it comes to LGBT relationships in educational settings. Yet, there is much work out there that suggests otherwise. El Formby’s work discussing sex education with LGBT young people, for example, highlights that there’s a long way to go to make PSHE inclusive of all genders and sexualities. She also suggests that in order to prevent LGBT bullying the discourse needs to be widened to not only think of bad individual bullies and passive (LGBT) victims, but to address wider hetero and cisnormative practice in education and wider society (an argument mirrored by The Queering Education Institute working in a US context).

But what’s this got to do with The Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds? For me, much of what is shown in the show, and the way that the children’s actions are analysed and read-into by the psychologists, perpetuates hetero and cisnormativity.

It doesn’t take much communication/friendship between a girl and a boy in the show for a wave of excitement and insinuations that the children are in some kind of romantic relationship. For example at the beginning of the 5 Year Olds (2016) Episode 1, Jude is the first to enter the playgroup and take a seat. Shortly after, Ellie arrives, and chooses to sit next to Jude. The show then cuts to the psychologists who, pointing out that the children have sat next to one-another, say “we’ve got our first love in”, before the camera moves poignantly to a shot of the children’s feet next to one-another. I don’t here want to deny the children’s right to understand their relationships with other children in whatever way they choose. Indeed, it should be acknowledged that Jude and Ellie, like many other children featuring in the series, do indeed go on to refer to each other as boyfriend and girlfriend and discuss (when asked directly) being in love, before Ellie ends their relationship as girlfriend and boyfriend as the programme comes to an end. Furthermore it could be argued that the comments from the psychologists about such romance between the children happen in a fairly tongue in cheek way. Despite this, never do we see adult claims of romance based on a friendship or relationship between two boys, two girls or other groups of children. Thus, a norm of heterosexuality is maintained and the children’s possibility of understanding themselves outside of a heteronormative framework is restricted.

School’s OUT, an organisation working, campaigning and researching within schools to support LGBT students, offer an approach a two stage approach to making school settings more LGBT inclusive. They call the first stage ‘usualising’. On their website, The Classroom (which is full of useful lesson plans and resources for teachers) they describe usualising as consistently making learners aware of the presence of LGBT people, and argue that this should start in Early Years classrooms. Stage two, actualising, means discussing LGBT lives in some fuller aspect. Whereas usualising should happen across the curriculum, actualising takes place in specific lessons where the objectives are to have greater understandings of LGBT lives. Although perhaps the ‘actualising’ wouldn’t be appropriate in The Secret Lives of 4, 5 and 5 Year Olds (as the children are generally left to play) ‘usualising’ could happen through the toys, books and activities that are used in the setting (see this suggested resource list in the right-hand side ‘downloads’ column from Liz Chapman). Although I don’t know for sure that books such as The Great Big Book of Families aren’t sitting around somewhere in the Secret Lives of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds school, the lack of queerness elsewhere in the show makes me doubtful. The programme has yet to include, for example, a discussion of queer parents. Perhaps even more tellingly, in the same episode discussed above, a task involved the children having to act as parents for simulation (dolls that cry, need feeding, changing etc). To complete this task, the children were matched up to parent in boy-girl pairs, thus mirroring the nuclear family (there was some dodgy disability politics in this too, which I’ll come back to in blog post number two).

Examples such as the above perhaps most explicitly demonstrate heteronormativity. Yet there is cisnormativity hidden within them. Throughout the programme, the differences between boys and girls are consistently reiterated: not explicitly, as in restricting which toys the children can play with, but implicitly by setting up, for example, ‘girls vs boys’ challenges, thus perpetuating the myth that girls and boys are binary opposites, and nobody can bridge or live outside of those two categories. One task in the latest episode required the girls to dress-up as their dads, and the boys to dress-up as their mums. Perhaps this was meant to liberate the children from their gender roles and norms, but without any pedagogy/discussion behind it, it in fact reiterated the gendered categories, as the children policed each others’ responses to the task. Julia Serano’s work on the devaluing of femininity came to mind, as whereas for the girls it was a task taken lightly, the boys reactions were much stronger, with some crying and refusing to take part. It was sad to see one boy, Nat, go from enjoying the task, and liking the dress that he had chosen, to saying that he looked silly and hated having to wear the outfit.


Perhaps one of the things that I feel The Secret Life of 4, 5 and 6 Year Olds is missing is a pedagogy which opens up space for discussion with the children. Rather than just leave the laughter and upset about ‘boys dressing as girls’ hanging, wouldn’t it have been nice to talk about why it should be such a big deal for a boy to wear a dress? Perhaps this conversation did happen, but didn’t make the final cut. Maybe it is inevitable in a TV documentary, probably more interested in funny sound bites than a space to talk and reflect. Or maybe it is the influence of approaches to research coming from psychology – claiming objectivity and a lack of influence on what goes on (as I think the discussion above suggests, I would argue that any such claim is always false). Whichever, if any, of these are true, I do wonder what it’d look like to have sociologists, rather than psychologists, narrating the show.

Toilets & Utopian Educational Futures…

I’ve been quiet on here recently – mainly because it’s been a really busy semester both teaching, and with the Around the Toilet project. There’s lots more information on the Around the Toilet blog, but here’s a bit of a summary, along with a recent talk I have given on Utopian Educations.

The summary:

In February we found out that we’d been given some more funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council to extend the Around the Toilet project. We spent the money making:

  • Travelling Toilet Tales – an animated film which documents journeys taken/not taken due to in/accessible toilets.
  • Toilet Toolkit – an interactive website, which translates some of the stories collected in the project so far to practical design solutions for architects and design professionals.

Access to the film and toolkit will be available via the Around the Toilet blog soon. We hope they will be useful to those campaigning for more accessible toilet spaces and to influence design practice. Our next step is to think about how we can get these out and being used… we’ve got some ideas up our sleeves, but would love to hear from anyone with ideas!

People passing through Somerset House, London, last weekend were given a sneak preview of the film and toolkit, as we were invited to take part in a ‘Utopia Fair‘. Despite the fairly distopian mood following recent political events, we spent the weekend talking Utopian toilets to visitors and got some really exciting ideas, toilet stories, and positive feedback about the project.


Utopian Toilet Model Making at the Utopia Fair

I was also honoured to be invited to give a 5-minute provocation about what a utopian education could look like alongside Keri Facer, Professor of Educational and Social Futures, and Rachel Roberts, Director of the Phoenix Education Trust and democratic education campaigner. Here’s a picture of Keri and I during the discussion, and below I have included my full 5 minute provocation.


Keri Facer and I during the Utopian Educations discussion

The Talk:

What do we learn, not through formal teaching, but through the spaces that we inhabit and the things that are around us?

What do we learn if there are two toilet doors in our school – a pink one, with a princess on, and a blue one with a rocket on?

What do we learn when, because we like blue and rockets, we choose the blue, rocket toilet, and our teacher tells us off, because we are a girl, and have gone in the wrong toilet?

Do we learn that space, adventure and exploring, science and technology, are things for boys, and girls need to concentrate on being and looking pretty like a princess?

What do we learn if actually, we don’t identify as ‘boy’ or ‘girl’, ‘man’ or ‘woman’ and we’re not represented at all within the binary gender categories on the toilet door?

As a non-binary, or gender queer person (someone that doesn’t identify as a man or a woman), neither do we have a box to tick on a form asking for demographic information, when the only options that we are presented with are ‘male’ or ‘female’.

Neither is there a sports team that represents us in our local area.

What if the symbol on the toilet door that we’re taught to use is a blue wheelchair sign?

Do we feel separated from the ‘girl talk’ that’s happening with our peers in the ‘girl’s’ toilet around the corner (Allan, Smyth, l’Anson, & Mott, 2009)? Do we feel that aren’t understood as a girl?

What do we learn if we are a trans girl or woman, who neither feels safe or welcome in the woman’s toilet?

What if we need to use that accessible toilet, with a wheelchair symbol, because we need the extra space to change a colostomy bag, or we need to use the handrails, but actually we don’t use a wheelchair, so people shout at us, telling us that this isn’t the space for us?

Is this similar to the lesson that we learn when we go to university, to find that the lecture theatre is stepped? When all our new classmates, that we’re trying so hard to make friends with, move to the back, and we’re left on our own, looking like a geek at the front.

It’s not a very utopian picture that I’m painting, but as feminist, utopian scholar, Lucy Sargisson (2000) tells us, we can’t reimagine the future, without first critiquing the present.

So how could these things be different?

We learn what bodies and minds are meant to do and be, how they relate to identity, how we are positioned and understood in society, through the most mundane of spaces and circumstances.

We learn through TV and the media

through teen magazines

through aps which count calories and steps

through children’s toys,

through hills, slopes and cobbles that aren’t accessible to us

through the bodies that advertise ‘beach wear’ – or the cereals we’re meant to eat to get our ‘beach body’

through being told that by now our child should no longer have an imaginary friend

or that we’re meant to have learnt our 9 times tables before we leave primary school

through the ways that we internalise what it means to be a man, to be productive, to be useful.

How could these things be different, in my utopian land?

I am part of a project called Around the Toilet. In Around the Toilet, we’re thinking about how toilets can be different, to teach different, more inclusive, lessons about the people that are welcome in certain spaces.

And really, although we’re starting with the toilet, we’ve been led to think much more widely about the relationship between space, and what we learn about our bodies and identities.

We’ve found that gender neutral toilets can be beneficial for many, including non-binary, gender queer and other gender variant people, some trans people, some LGB and queer people, a parent with a child of a different gender, some disabled people, some people with carers or personal assistants of a different gender.

We’ve spoken to disabled parents about the importance of having accessible baby changing facilities. It is about architects and designers imagining their potential user group differently –  let’s assume that some disabled parents will be in this space, and structurally include them through toilet design.

Through the provision of accessible toilets, we learn different, more utopian lessons, about which bodies are welcome.

We’ve learnt from Disability Arts (e.g., who think of accessibility as something creative, rather than a bureaucratic, box-ticking exercise.

Places of education could learn from this – what do we lose when we teach children, young people and adults, in closed-off, age-based, exclusive environments?

What could it do to education, for example, to have BSL as a language embraced, and histories of Deaf culture explored, within school settings?

What would if mean if rather than learn implicit lessons of gender and sexuality through pictures of  slim, white and ‘able’, heterosexual couples, we were exposed to imagery much more inclusive of a whole range of bodies and ways of being?

What if disabled bodies, queer bodies, fat bodies, bodies of colour, bodies that have been continually taught that they don’t fit and aren’t ‘right’, were the bodies that we learnt from? Bodies that were welcomed as parents, teachers, dancers, artists?

A utopian education to me means thinking both inside and outside of formal learning institutions. It means listening to and learning from those currently marginalised. It means thinking about those implicit lessons that we’re currently taught, through the most mundane spaces and instances, about what bodies should do and be.


Allan, J., Smyth, G., l’Anson, J., & Mott, J. (2009). Understanding disability with children’s social capital. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(2), 115-121.

Sargisson, L. (2000). Utopian bodies and the politics of transgression. London: Routledge.



Storying School Toilets – Workshop Summary from the Sheffield Hallam Primary and Early Years Conference

On the 12th January 2016, Lisa Procter (University of Sheffield) and I ran a workshop as part of the Storying School Toilets project, at the Sheffield Hallam University Primary and Early Years Conference. The workshop was based upon work we had done for theESRC Festival of Social Science late last year; working with Primary aged children and artist Nicky Ward from The Bower Wirks to create comics of children’s toilet stories.

We had really interesting conversations with practitioners at this conference, and with their permission have summarised the workshop on the Around the Toilet blog here.

Funded PhD Advertised – Exploring the body in education: Gender and Dis/ability

Sheffield Hallam University are advertising funded PhD places across the university. These include PhDs in my (education) department, and within this a couple that are ‘disability’ related (but also lots of others that look interesting – critiquing marketisation, autonomy and ‘teaching excellence’, for example).

Below is the one that I will be supervising alongside the brilliant El Formby and Julia Hirst if somebody is successful in their application. Get in touch if you fancy applying!

More info here (click on the ‘education’ link on the right to get to all the ‘education’ projects).

Project 3: Exploring the body in education: thinking through gender and dis/ability

Although the place of the body within education has been theorised in relation to gender and sexuality (e.g. Paechter, 2004), rarely does it engage with the views of disabled children and young people. Yet, disability is an embodied phenomenon which mediates relations to the world (Titchkosky, 2011; Slater, 2015). This research would use ‘the body’ as a place to bring together disability studies, and theories relating to gender, sexualities and education. The student would be joining a team experienced in working creatively with disabled and non-disabled children/young people through scholarship and research. The research would be qualitative and could use creative, participatory and/or arts-based methodologies. For further information, or informal discussion, please contact Dr Jenny Slater (

School Toilets, ‘Development’ and Queer Disabled Bodies – new paper!

I’ve just uploaded a paper that I presented at the annual conference in the department at my university last Wednesday. It’s called ‘School Toilets, ‘Development’ and Queer Disabled Bodies‘. I’ve pasted the abstract below, and you can read the full paper from my ‘conference papers and presentations‘ page.

School Toilets, ‘Development’ and Queer Disabled Bodies

In this paper I interrogate entwined discourses of ‘health’ and ‘development’ that dominate literature around school toilets. I argue that this literature works from a normative position which implicitly perpetuates dominant and oppressive ideals situating ‘normal’ childhood as (amongst other things) ‘able’, heteronormative, conforming to gender binaries, and inferior to ‘adulthood’. Furthermore, I use data from Around the Toilet, a collaborative project between academic researchers and queer, trans and disabled people’s organisations (, to show that the built environment of the (school) toilet itself supports such discourses and teaches around normal/abnormal ways of being in the world. School toilets therefore act as one device for Othering those that do not fit into normative discourses of ‘childhood’ and there is work to be done to integrate literature on school toilets with more radical and socially just activist-academic toilet work.

Youth and Disability: A Challenge to Mr Reasonable – London Book Launch! 7th December

It’s not too often that I venture down south, but…

When? Monday 7th December, 1-3

Where? Department of Education, London South Bank University, Room V203, K2 Building, 103 Borough Road, SE1 OAA

Free to attend and everybody welcome, but please  email if you are coming from outside LSBU

You are warmly invited to join us for the ‘London Book Launch’ of Jenny Slater’s book, Youth and Disability: A Challenge to My Reasonable, published by Ashgate in February this year.

Jenny will present a paper based upon one chapter of the book, Young Disabled People, Gender and Sexuality. There will be a time for questions and conversation, and half price vouchers for the book available.

Information about Youth and Disability: A Challenge to Mr Reasonable by Jenny Slater. Published by Ashgate as part of their Interdisciplinary Disability Studies series (series editor: Mark Sherry).

In this ground-breaking book, Jenny Slater uses the lens of ‘the reasonable’ to explore how normative understandings of youth, dis/ability and the intersecting identities of gender and sexuality impact upon the lives of young dis/abled people. Although youth and disability have separately been thought within socio-cultural frameworks, rarely have sociological studies of ‘youth’ and ‘disability’ been brought together. By taking an interdisciplinary, critical disability studies approach to explore the socio-cultural concepts of ‘youth’ and ‘disability’ alongside one-another, Slater convincingly demonstrates that ‘youth’ and ‘disability’ have been conceptualised within medical/psychological frameworks for too long.

With chapters focusing on access and youth culture, independence, autonomy and disabled people’s movements, and the body, gender and sexuality, this volume’s intersectional and transdisciplinary engagement with social theory offers a significant contribution to existing theoretical and empirical literature and knowledges around disability and youth. Indeed, through highlighting the ableism of adulthood and the falsity of conceptualising youth as a time of becoming-independent-adult, the need to shift approaches to research around dis/abled youth is one of the main themes of the book. This book therefore is a provocation to rethink what is implicit about ‘youth’ and ‘disability’. Moreover, through such an endeavour, this book sits as a challenge to Mr Reasonable.

Contents: Introduction: theoretical perspectives; Disabled people in (neo)liberal times (or, disability as unreasonable); Youth as border zone, disability and disposability (or, challenging youth as becoming-reasonable adult); The making of un/reasonable bodies at the border zone of youth; From adulthood independence to continuing relational autonomy; Negotiating space and constituting ‘problems’: access at the border zone of youth; Dis/abled youth, bodies, femininity and sexuality: having difficult conversations; The limits of ‘sameness’: goodbye Mr Reasonable; References; Index.

About the Author: Jenny Slater is Lecturer in Education and Disability Studies at Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

Reviews: ‘With this book Slater announces herself as a rising star of critical disability studies. This impassioned, politicised and engaged text alerts us to the possibilities that emerge for reimagining the human at the intersections of dis/ability and youth. Written with verve, humour and accountability, Slater illustrates that critical scholarship can be both theoretical and biographical in equal measure. A wonderful book.’
Dan Goodley, University of Sheffield, UK

‘Jenny Slater goes straight to the “heart of the matter” to interrogate the “unreasonability” of “reasonable” neo-liberal discourses that enact violence against disabled youth. Slater writes lucidly linking theory with first person accounts by disabled youth and with her own insightful reflections to foreground ableism masquerading as a “reasonable” discourse at the intersections of race, class, gender identity, and sexuality.’
Nirmala Erevelles, The University of Alabama, USA