Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i4.7046 Article Latin American Perspectives on Parenthood and Disability: Vulnerability, Risk, and Social Inclusion Laura Sanmiquel‐Molinero *, Joan Pujol‐Tarrés, and Marisela Montenegro Department of Social Psychology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain * Corresponding author (laura.sanmiquel@uab.cat) Submitted: 25 April 2023 | Accepted: 19 July 2023 | Published: 5 December 2023 Abstract Despite the growing recognition and acceptance of disabled people’s sexuality, there are barriers to parenthood anchored in metaphors of vulnerability and risk. The social inclusion of disabled parents seems both desirable and risky, making disabled parenthood one of the current frontiers of inclusion for the disabled body. The interest in disabled parenting in Anglo‐Saxon academic literature has barely been considered related to Latin American production. This article aims to address this gap by exploring the Latin American scientific community’s understanding of parenthood and disability. To do so, we conduct a pragmatic discourse analysis of Latin American scientific articles in Web of Science (in English) and RedALyC and SciELO (in Spanish). Our findings show how the Latin American scientific community draws on different mod‐ els of disability—in some cases introducing an intersectional perspective—that reproduce metaphors of vulnerability/risk regarding parenthood. We conclude by highlighting the importance of establishing dialogues between critical perspectives on disability from the Anglo‐Saxon and Latin American contexts to address the complexities of the reproduction processes of disabled people. These dialogues can contribute to problematising the metaphor of vulnerability/risk currently associ‐ ated with disabled parenthood. Keywords critical disability studies; disabled parenthood; Latin America; risk; vulnerability Issue This article is part of the issue “Disabled People and the Intersectional Nature of Social Inclusion” edited by Alexis Buettgen (McMaster University), Fernando Fontes (Universidade de Coimbra), Susan Eriksson (South‐Eastern Finland University of Applied Sciences), and Colin Barnes (University of Leeds) as part of the (In)Justice International Collective. © 2023 by the author(s); licensee Cogitatio Press (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction: Critical and Intersectional Perspectives kinds of impairments experience parenthood exclusion, on Disabled Parenthood it is particularly poignant regarding intellectual, men‐ tal, and severe physical impairments. The internation‐ While critical perspectives on disability have gained influ‐ ally ratified United Nations Convention on the Rights ence in recent decades, social inclusion in the repro‐ of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD, 2006) includes the ductive sphere still faces significant barriers. Greenspan right to “make a family” (Art. 23). This has complicated et al. (1986, p. 2) consider disabled parenthood “the the discursive exclusion of disabled parenthood as it ultimate test of living in a free and humane society.” currently revolves around an alleged conflict between Indeed, reproduction is considered “the ground zero of “vulnerable subjects” whose rights are at risk. Both the disabled peoples’ foundational exclusion from moder‐ disabled parents’ right to form a family and their off‐ nity” (Mitchell & Snyder, 2019, p. xv), and this article spring’s right to healthy development (allegedly threat‐ addresses how the metaphor risk/vulnerability repro‐ ened by parental disability) must be protected. There is duces this exclusion within the matrix of modern rational‐ little academic production on this subject: Guénoun et al. ity. According to Malacrida (2019), while people with all (2022) identified 16 articles in English and French, while Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 338 López Radrigán (2020) identified eight Latin American tion, disabled motherhood (Malacrida, 2019; Thomas, articles in EBSCOhost. In this article, we analyse Latin 2006), or impairment. Thus, these scholars argued the American scientific production around disabled parent‐ need for an intersectional perspective. Notably, intersec‐ hood, exploring similarities and differences between tionality is not exclusive to social models. When used in Anglo‐Saxon and Latin American productions and con‐ individual models, the intersectional perspective analy‐ tributing to the recent dialogue between critical disabil‐ ses how different subaltern identities add to disability ity studies (CDS) in these regions. as risk factors. In contrast, in derivatives of the social To contextualise CDS, we outline a brief genealogy model, disability is understood as a form of oppression of disability studies (DS). The social model of disability, that intersects with other systems of difference, gen‐ the foundation of British DS, is based on the distinction erating greater degrees of social vulnerability (Míguez, between “impairments” (bodily defects) and disability or 2020). Interestingly, both individual and social intersec‐ disablism (social oppression of people considered to be tional approaches are based on the metaphor of multiple impaired; see Thomas, 2006). The social model made discrimination (McCall, 2005). it possible to identify individual models of disability by CDS is another transformation of the social model contrast. Clare (2001) distinguishes between “medical, that incorporates the intersectional perspective. Its charity, supercrip, and moral models” (p. 359), while Anglo‐Saxon version incorporates the notion of ableism. Palacios and Romañach (2006) differentiate between Ableism is the condition of possibility of disablism and disposability models (the eugenic and marginalisation also other systems of social differentiation, such as models) and the medical model. Disposability models heterosexism, racism, classism, or ageism (Wolbring, (Palacios & Romañach, 2006) neglect disabled people 2008). Relatedly, Latin American CDS scholars (Gesser because of alleged deficient social contribution and reli‐ et al., 2020; Guedes de Mello, 2021) have also used gious reasons. In this sense, the classical (Greco‐Roman) the notion of ableism as the establishment of a nor‐ eugenic model (Palacios & Romañach, 2006) considered mative ideal body for capitalist productivity. Not only the infanticide of disabled children because they were is this corporeal norm the benchmark for disabled peo‐ sinful. Marginalisation (Palacios & Romañach, 2006) ple but also poor people, blacks or mestizos, migrants and charity (Clare, 2001) models equal disability with from peripheral countries, or the rural population. Thus, poverty, treating disabled people as non‐agentic objects ableism is strongly related to and mutually constitutive of charity. Similarly, the moral model (Clare, 2001) under‐ of other systems of oppression, such as sexism, racism, stands disability as an indication of “moral weakness” LGBTphobia, and classism. Gesser et al. (2020) intro‐ (p. 360). More recent models of disability include the duce a systemic/structural notion of intersectionality to medical, where disability results from biological impair‐ understand how these systems work to oppress partic‐ ments, and the supercrip, where disability is a disposi‐ ular groups, amplifying processes of exclusion. Other tion to be overcome. In a previous study, we argued authors explore specific axis of domination. Inguanzo that the medical model seems to currently work with (2020) focuses on the intersection between disabled the other individual models (Sanmiquel‐Molinero & and indigenous identities, while Lopes (2018) explores Pujol‐Tarrés, 2020). how expectations about sexuality and motherhood are Individual models are also intertwined with the social entirely different when gender intersects with disabil‐ model and its derivatives. On the one hand, from the ity. Other authors have argued that the exclusion of 1990s onwards, Finkelstein (2007) argued that the social disabled parenthood is intertwined with modern ratio‐ model was depoliticised as it became a matter of “indi‐ nality that produces multiple hierarchisations of bod‐ vidual rights” sanctioned by states, thus dismissing the ies in terms of, for example, ability, gender, and race transformative vocation of the social structures of the (Díaz, 2012; López Radrigán, 2020). Latin American inter‐ original model. Similarly, in Latin America, Contino (2013) sectional perspectives are not homogeneous; they com‐ states that the inclusion of disability in the international bine the metaphor of multiple discriminations with the development agenda led to practices, discourses, and metaphor of “interweaving” and the co‐construction of policies that individualised the problem of the exclu‐ oppressions (Lugones, 2008, p. 80). sion of disabled people. Furthermore, for López Radrigán The decolonial perspective explores the interrelation‐ and Ramírez Fuentes (2022), the popularisation of these ship between the coloniality of the self, the coloniality models has generated a specific gap in contemporary of power and the coloniality of knowledge (Pino Morán post‐colonial contexts. The global capitalist and colonial & Tiseyra, 2019; Villa Rojas, 2020). Following Ferrari system perpetuates the endemic fragility and extreme (2020), the coloniality of ability considers individualisa‐ precariousness of the Global South, as well as the dis‐ tion as the only human possibility to face life and cre‐ enfranchised sectors of the Global North. While rights ates a “monoculture epistemology” (Díaz et al., 2021, are claimed for some disabled people, others are consid‐ p. 50) that naturalises difference and “others” the dis‐ ered disposable. abled subject. In addition, the Latin American intersec‐ On the other hand, the ramifications of the social tional perspectives incorporate some other perspectives model re‐politicised aspects that the British social model besides the colonial analysis (López Radrigán & Ramírez had relegated to the personal sphere, such as reproduc‐ Fuentes, 2022, p. 61) and develop understandings of Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 339 anti‐ableism from the Global South (Guedes de Mello, the integrity of a subject who inherently does not have 2021; Munévar, 2021). sufficient resources to face a threat and is, therefore, vul‐ Anglo‐Saxon and Latin American CDS provide valu‐ nerabilised. Moreover, the “vulnerability/risk” metaphor able frameworks for problematising the notions of vul‐ assumes a threatening agent that will inevitably hurt nerability and risk usually used in analyses of disability those who do not have sufficient resources. So, if “dis‐ and reproduction. Shildrick (2000) argues that vulner‐ ability is vulnerability/risk” and “disability” means some‐ ability is an inherently human feature that ableism thing different depending on the model of disability, it is projects onto “othered” groups (disabled people, preg‐ relevant to ask what the risk and the subject of vulnerabil‐ nant women, children, or old people). Simultaneously, ity are in different models of disability in Latin American the normative (male, able, adult) body often refuses studies on parenthood and disability. to openly recognise itself as “vulnerable” to the risk of being contaminated by these “othered” bodies. 2. Method Regarding disabled motherhood, Fritsch (2017, p. 249) made an analogous argument when she claimed that Metaphors are crucial in the inception, dissemination, the disabled body embodies the risks from which moth‐ and production of scientific knowledge (Quale, 2002). ers are supposed to protect their children. Thus, dis‐ This article conducts a pragmatic analysis (Mey, 2001) abled mothers are pressured to prove that they are not a of the interrelation between the metaphor vulnerabil‐ risk to their “vulnerable” children, which, in turn, results ity/risk and disabled parenthood in Latin American sci‐ in them not asking for support, and this makes them entific literature. Pragmatic analysis identifies the social more vulnerable (Daniels, 2019). Recent Latin American implications of statements beyond their manifest mean‐ CDS scholars have also problematised vulnerability or ing through a contextualisation of the statement (Duffy, “fragility” by emphasising that not only are vulnerability 2008) that is necessarily theory‐based. Following anticipa‐ and risk symbolically projected onto othered groups, but tory pragmatics, which seeks to promote non‐oppressive also in very material ways. In this sense, Vite Hernández uses of language (Mey, 2012, p. 705), we contextualise (2020, p. 17) argues that feminist perspectives have ana‐ the statements following the CDS perspective. We do not lysed fragility from two standpoints: intend to support a particular disability model but con‐ tribute to the dialogue between CDS perspectives. The first, based on what harms us from the outside, Regarding the sample, we conducted an initial search locating the structures that do not affect all of us in (“disability and parenthood”) on Web of Science. Latin the same way, so that the lives and bodies of some American institutions only developed 1/300 articles. individuals are more at risk than others due to the We used SciELO and RedALyC, databases that dissem‐ unequal management of how life is ensured, and the inate Latin American science. Searches for the expres‐ second, based on the shared ontological condition of sions “paternity and disability,” “maternity and disabil‐ fragility, it calls for the creation of relationships of ity,” “disabled mother,” “disabled father,” “father with interdependence and care. disability,” and “mother with disability” yielded 23 sci‐ entific articles. We removed seven: five outside Latin Regarding disabled parenthood, the notion of vulnera‐ American institutions, one translated from English, and bility is polysemic, as it implies different subjects are one that was a review of other articles. The selected “put at risk” by different agents. We analyse vulnerabil‐ 16 articles and the main model of disability they use are ity/risk as a metaphor for disability where disability is in Table 1. equated with “vulnerability/risk” so that all or some of The analytical procedure proceeded as follows: the characteristics of the “vulnerability/risk” binomial are indirectly transferred to disability, establishing a field 1. Coding of the article: We coded each article of possibilities and impossibilities for the disabled person using the following categories: explicit model of (Edwards, 1997). Vulnerability “puts at risk” or threatens disability; presence—or not—of an intersectional Table 1. Articles and their main model. No. Article Model Article 1 Medical Alarcón, J., Castro, M., Frites, C., & Gajardo, C. (2015). Desafíos de la educación preescolar en Chile: Ampliar la cobertura, mejorar la calidad y evitar el acoplamiento [Challenges of preschool education in Chile: Expanding coverage, improving quality, and avoiding encopling]. Estudios Pedagógicos, XLI(2), 287–303. 2 Rights Basaure Miranda, I. M. (2017). Situación del derecho a la maternidad de las mujeres con discapacidad mental en Argentina [Situation of the right to motherhood for women with intellectual disabilities in Argentina]. Derecho Global. Estudios sobre Derecho y Justicia, 3(7), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.32870/dgedj.v0i7.117 Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 340 Table 1. (Cont.) Articles and their main model. No. Article Model Article 3 Moral Baudoin, N. (2020). Crafting for change: Dos experiencias de creación participativa en Francia y Argentina [Crafting for change: Two experiences of participatory creation in France and Argentina]. Economía Creativa, 13, 68–123. 4 Social Block, P. (2002). Sexuality, parenthood, and cognitive disability in Brazil. Sexuality and Disability, 20(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015230303621 5 Social Cárcamo‐Hernández, O., & Rovira, J. P. (2022). Cuando la exclusión escolar se presenta como ‘oportunidad’: Una aproximación etnográfica a la Movilidad Interescolar Temprana (MIET) [When school exclusion presents itself as an “opportunity”: An ethnographic approach to early inter‐school mobility (EISM)]. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 85, 121–142. 6 Medical Castro, L. R., & Zúñiga, O. M. (2002). Principales dilemas bioéticos en las personas con discapacidad prolongada [Main bioethical dilemmas in individuals with long‐term disabilities]. Acta Bioethica, 8(1), 127–135. 7 Social Cisternas, M. S. (2013). Salud global, género y derechos humanos [Global health, gender, and human rights]. Revista Enfoques: Ciencia Política y Administración Pública, 11(18), 153–186. 8 Social Cruz‐Pérez, M. d. P. (2014). Mitos acerca de la maternidad en mujeres con discapacidad [Myths about motherhood in women with disabilities]. Perinatología y Reproducción Humana, 28(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rprh.2015.06.001 9 Rights Cruz‐Pérez, M. del P. (2015). Acceso a derechos sexuales y reproductivos de las mujeres con discapacidad: El papel de las y los prestadores de servicio [Access to sexual and reproductive rights of women with disabilities: The role of service providers]. Revista de Estudios de Género. La Ventana, 42, 7–45. 10 Eugenic Figari, C. E. (2009). Más allá de las sexualidades posibles Dilemas de las prácticas incestuosas [Beyond possible sexualities: Dilemmas of incestuous practices]. Desacatos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 30, 129–146. 11 Rights Garrido, L. A. (2018). Las políticas de conciliación de la vida familiar y laboral en España y sus avances en la equidad de género [Family and work reconciliation policies in Spain and their progress in gender equity]. Revista Interdisciplinaria de Estudios de Género de El Colegio de México, 4. 12 Social Herrera, F. (2022). ‘La mamá soy yo’: Experiencias parentales de madres y padres con discapacidad en Chile [“La mamá soy yo”: Parental experiences of mothers and fathers with disabilities in Chile]. Psicologia em Estudo, 27. https://doi.org/10.4025/psicolestud.v27i0.58850 13 Supercrip Mata, R. M. H. (2019). Las madres solteras universitarias: Redes de apoyo social e identidad materna [Single mothers who are university students: Social support networks and maternal identity]. Intersticios Sociales, 17, 203–231. 14 Rights Proenza‐Pupo, J. R., Enríquez‐Lozano, C. A., & Serrano‐Galindo, S. A. (2020). Herramienta tecnopedagógica, para el aprendizaje de la metodología de investigación científica, en estudiantes sordos [Technopedagogical tool for learning scientific research methodology in deaf students.]. Luz, 19(4), 97–105. 15 Eugenic Valdés, E., & Puentes, L. V. (2018). El bioderecho y sus aportes a los ordenamientos jurídicos colombiano e interamericano. A propósito de una decisión peligrosa de la Corte Constitucional y su coincidencia con la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos [Biolaw and its contributions to the Colombian and Inter‐American legal systems. On a dangerous decision of the Constitutional Court and its coincidence with the jurisprudence of the Inter‐American Court of Human Rights]. Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, 51(153), 673–710. 16 Eugenic Yupanqui‐Concha, A., Aranda‐Farias, C., & Ferrer‐Pérez, V. A. (2021). Violencias invisibles hacia mujeres y niñas con discapacidad: Elementos que favorecen la continuidad de la práctica de esterilización forzada en Chile [Invisible violence towards women and girls with disabilities: Elements that foster the continuity of forced sterilization practices in Chile]. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 77, 58–75. Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 341 perspective; the article’s aims and general implica‐ analysis procedures explicit; (c) credibility, reviewing tions; and use of the metaphor risk/vulnerability. the inter‐researcher coding; (d) trustworthiness, mak‐ 2. Coding of the excerpts: We selected 178 excerpts ing the research perspective explicit and contrasting the referring to disabled parenthood and coded them results with scientific research; and (e) saturation, includ‐ as follows: article; model of disability; subjects ing in the analysis all scientific articles that meet the involved; the excerpt’s objective; and implica‐ search criteria. tions. For implications, we focused on identify‐ ing how models of disability and vulnerability/risk 3. Results metaphor worked in each excerpt. 3. The three authors independently coded the While articles can be classified by their primary dis‐ excerpts and then reviewed any coding ability model (“M. article” column in Table 4), the arti‐ differences. cles include references to different models of disability (“Model” columns in Table 4). An article can: (a) ascribe Table 2 illustrates the disability models identified in the to one model and simultaneously adhere to the postu‐ excerpts. The most frequently used models are eugenic, lates of other models; (b) include references or argu‐ medical, and social. Supercrip is the least frequently used. ments from other models to reinforce or criticise them. The disabled woman and the disabled person are This result would be congruent with the dialogical char‐ the most frequent main subjects implied in the excerpts, acter of language and the multiple voices that traverse it accounting for over half the excerpts. There are a few (Bakhtin, 2010; Danow, 1991). excerpts where disabled people’s families appear as the In the analysis, we have identified two ways of using main subject; usually, the family appears as a secondary the vulnerability/risk metaphor: (a) disability as vulnera‐ subject (Table 3). bility/risk for disabled people (see Table 5), and (b) dis‐ We applied the following criteria of rigour (El Hussein ability as vulnerability/risk for other subjects, including et al., 2015): (a) fitness, through the theoretical ana‐ the developing child, the disabled person’s family, or the lysis of the implications; (b) auditability, making the social body as a whole. We present these results using Table 2. Articles and their main model. Model No. excerpts Percentage of total Eugenic 51 27.7% Medical 35 19.0% Moral 27 14.7% Rights 29 15.8% Social 36 19.6% Supercrip 6 3.3% Table 3. Frequencies of the subject. Main subject No. excerpts Percentage of total Disabled people 48 26.1% Disabled women 51 27.7% Legal 54 29.3% Professionals 26 14.1% Table 4. Cross‐modelling of articles and excerpts. Model M. Article Medical Rights Social Moral Eugenic Supercrip Eugenic 14.1% 9.4% 15.3% 14.1% 41.2% 5.9% Medical 17.2% 0.0% 34.5% 6.9% 41.4% 0.0% Rights 20.7% 55.2% 13.8% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% Social 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Social‐rights 30.8% 12.8% 23.1% 25.6% 7.7% 0.0% Supercrip 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Total 19.0% 15.8% 19.6% 14.7% 27.7% 3.3% Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 342 Table 5. Summary of (a) disability as vulnerability/risk for disabled people. Disability as vulnerability/risk for disabled people Model Risk factor Vulnerabilised subject Medical Motherhood Biologically deficient subject Rights Agents (e. g., states) that enforce disabled Impaired subject as a subject of parental rights people’s rights to parenthood Social Physical and social disabling barriers Impaired subject who is trying to become to parenthood a parent Moral Disabled people’s lack of moral judgement Impaired subject who is amenable to becoming or agency pregnant as a result of sexual assault Supercrip Disabled people’s lack of moral strength to Impaired subject who is trying to become overcome impairment and disabling barriers a parent Eugenic — — excerpts identified with the article number (following the People with mental disabilities…do not have suffi‐ order in Table 1) and the corresponding excerpt number. cient ability to criticise the behaviours or opinions indicated to them by the people around them; this 3.1. Disability as Vulnerability/Risk for Disabled People is, inter alia, one of the causes that can lead them to constitute a group vulnerable to abuse in society. Disabled people are usually considered vulnerable. In the case of reproduction and parenting, this vulnerability Constructing disabled women as lacking (moral, sexual, falls especially on women (Table 3). and reproductive) agency allows professionals to justify From the medical model, disabled women are con‐ forced sterilisation as a way of preventing the vulnerabil‐ ceived as “biologically deficient” and, therefore, mother‐ ity that allegedly arises from sexual abuse‐related preg‐ hood is thought to put the woman at risk (Daniels, 2019; nancy (not sexual abuse in itself): “Forced…sterilisation López Radrigán, 2020). For example, one doctor advised is justified as…a way of preventing greater vulnerability a disabled woman to have an abortion, considering her to a possible pregnancy” (16/146). Alternatively, some pregnancy “risky” because of her disability. In another professionals suggest that disabled/vulnerable women case, a mother was recommended sterilisation because should be adequately trained to measure risks to com‐ “both the use of contraceptive methods and the preg‐ pensate for their lack of agency: “There are many nancy could be very dangerous in [her] condition” (9/89). abusers. They are sick, and they only take advantage [of An interviewed professional expressed something similar disabled women]. You know, these women’s need for (16/143): “As long as the risk of the [disabled] patient affection is so big….This is why discussing this subject is becoming pregnant is high, then it is better to oper‐ crucial to help them measure risks” (9/80). ate [sterilise].” Notably, excerpts 6/56 and 16/146 question disabled The moral model questions the disabled subject’s people’s moral judgement faculties while not question‐ ability for moral judgement; they are considered vulner‐ ing the moral judgement of those who “abuse.” This able to abuse by able‐bodied people as a result (6/56): naturalises the risk factor (abuse) as a morally neutral Table 6. Summary of (b) disability as vulnerability/risk for other subjects. Disability as vulnerability/risk for other subjects Model Risk factor Vulnerabilised subject Medical Parental biological deficiency Disabled people’s offspring Rights Disabled people as subjects of parental rights Disabled people’s offspring Social Disabling physical and social barriers to parenthood Disabled people’s offspring Moral Prospective disabled parents’ lack of moral Disabled people’s offspring and able‐bodied judgement or agency society (relatives, states) Supercrip Disabled people’s parents lack of moral strength to Disabled people’s offspring and able‐bodied overcome impairment and disabling barriers society (relatives, states) Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 343 result of physical or intellectual superiority while obscur‐ that weaken people’s access to rights. Furthermore, the ing the fact that violence is only possible inasmuch as the dictatorships in the Southern Cone, especially in Chile, abuser’s position in class, race, gender, and ability axes firmly implanted an economistic rationality, weakening is legitimised (García‐Santesmases, 2023). In contrast, state action (Núñez Parra, 2020). excerpt 9/80 pathologises the attraction and affection As with the social model, health professionals some‐ towards a disabled female body (vulnerable as she is “in times use the individual models alongside the rights need of affection”) as immoral. Disabled people are, in model: “The disabled person becomes a more vulner‐ both examples, at the mercy of the moral judgement of able human being, which makes it necessary to adopt non‐disabled people (Longmore, 1997, p. 136), and para‐ special measures…to protect their rights as a person, in doxically, the disabled subject is held morally responsible the face of decisions affecting him or her in the field of for not being sufficiently prepared to avoid vulnerability. health” (6/53). According to the social model, disabled people’s vul‐ Paradoxically, protecting disabled/vulnerable sub‐ nerability is caused by social barriers that put them at jects’ right to make decisions entails their substitution in risk. Mothers and fathers encounter environmental and decision‐making, which fits in with the individual model’s social impediments, and society is often unwilling to conception of the disabled subject as “morally or bio‐ make reasonable adjustments to enable them to exer‐ logically deficient” to decide autonomously for a course cise their parenthood (12/105). The narrative of barriers, of action: specific to the social model, is incorporated by the indi‐ vidual supercrip model by making the disabled subject This human faculty must be protected in persons responsible for “overcoming” both their impairment and with disabilities….By the principle of autonomy, the the barriers imposed on them, which means embodying patient could refuse treatment, but by the principle “intensive mothering” (12/101): of non‐maleficence, the professional could be com‐ pelled to provide it. In this confrontation of values, Mothers with disabilities develop everyday strate‐ third parties (responsible family members, for exam‐ gies of resistance to counteract negative views of ple) often act to resolve the conflict. (6/54) their disability. These strategies range from present‐ ing a highly disciplined public image of motherhood Finally, the intersectional perspectives identified in the (“super mums” who embody the values of intensive articles analyse vulnerability/risk from a summative per‐ mothering) to avoidance tactics that allow them to spective, considering that, in terms of violence, disabled protect themselves from possible assault (anticipat‐ women are more vulnerable than able‐bodied women ing discrimination). These strategies have high emo‐ or disabled men. For example: “It should be noted that tional and physical costs. the gender profile will be the sum of the conditions of vulnerability experienced by women and girls due The rights model recognises disabled people’s right to to the particular situations they experience because of create a family, which is explicit in the excerpt: “[Under their age, maternity, ethnicity, disability or other” (7/64). the CRPD] children with disabilities or parents with dis‐ This summative perspective also applies to indigenous or abilities shall not be separated from their parents or impoverished women’s rights: “A mother with a disability children, respectively” (14/116). However, the unwilling‐ belonging to an indigenous or impoverished group who ness or ineffectiveness of actors that should legally pro‐ does not meet the high expectations of intensive moth‐ tect disabled people are considered risk factors that ren‐ ering is likely to alert state institutions and face serious der the disabled body vulnerable. For example, excerpt threats to her parental rights” (12/114). 2/12 quotes the UN Committee in charge of monitor‐ Disability is both a matter of vulnerability and a risk ing compliance with the CRPD in Argentina, stating: factor in the reproductive processes of people, especially “The Committee expresses its concern at the existence, disabled women. in the country, of sterilisation practices of persons with disabilities without their free and informed consent.” 3.2. Disability as Vulnerability/Risk for Others Another excerpt about Chile states: “In the majority of the interviewees, negative perceptions are evident Individual models, unlike social models, not only con‐ regarding the defence of the rights that the state should sider the disabled person as vulnerable and put at risk guarantee to this population group, as it fails to ful‐ by their impairment but also see this vulnerability as fil its protective role and allows institutional violence a risk or threat to offspring, the family environment, against them” (16/171). Both examples can be inter‐ and the social body (Burghardt, 2013). Resorting to the preted within the particular contexts in which they are “moral” model, professionals argue that the disabled per‐ set. For Danel (2019), in Argentina, the foundations of son (again, especially women) is “unaware of risks” or a social intervention to restore injustices were lost during “whimsical” subject, selfish in wanting a child for which the dictatorship, and the work of the state towards dis‐ she cannot care. Excerpt 9/75 quotes Matilde, a 36‐year‐ ability has been shaped by certain breaks with dictatorial old sociologist: authoritarianism, but also by surreptitious continuities Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 344 I think that we should talk about it, make them aware entirely on the presence of “impairments,” excluding of the risks and it also depends on who the person is, other factors such as social class, gender or race. Thus, because then it is a mere whim and then their family a quasi‐anti‐intersectional perspective is manifested, faces the consequences of their pregnancy…and they where disability operates as a master status that justifies don’t think about the children either. the erasure of any other structural ascription that could condition well‐being. By contrast, we could say that the Disabled women are aware of professionals’ dismissive following excerpt argues for an intersectional perspective, attitude. Excerpt 9/74 quotes 37‐year‐old Adriana, who attentive to different power matrices when it states that: has spina bifida: For much of the twentieth century, individuals stig‐ [They said] that I shouldn’t think about that, that matized by gender, race, poverty, disability, or sexual‐ I should think about fulfilling myself in another way, ity were subject to extreme methods of social control or by adopting. Of course, they knew as well as I did in the United States and Europe….Practices perpe‐ that the DIF [integral family development] wouldn’t trated on these women [with cognitive disabilities] give me a baby for adoption because of my condition. included compulsory institutionalization and steriliza‐ tion, as policymakers focused on ways to reduce per‐ The above reference to adoption clarifies that what ceived threats to the social order. (4/46) professionals wish to avoid is biological motherhood because of the “risk” it poses to child development, Finally, the medical model also uses the rights model exemplifying the connection between the moral and regarding “disability as a risk to the body of the vul‐ eugenic models. Maternal disability is not only seen as nerable child.” The following excerpts denounce that, a risk for young children but also for school‐age children, although parental rights are recognised in Article 23 of who are categorised as disabled because of maternal dis‐ the CRPD, an Argentinian court decreed “the state of ability (5/49), and even adults when they are allegedly abandonment and adoptability of the child” based on prevented from pursuing their work projects because of the child’s “right to a healthy existence.” Another excerpt maternal disability (3/20). In some quotes, profession‐ notes that “the reasoning of the sentence is clear: Due to als justify preventing disabled women from reproducing her disability, [the disabled woman] is unfit to exercise without these women’s consent in terms of risk calcula‐ motherhood” (2/10). Here, a mother’s and a child’s rights tion with “unwanted disabled children” in mind: are violated through “the invocation of the best inter‐ ests of the child to be placed in a situation of adoptabil‐ The decision to force [non‐permanent] contracep‐ ity, without the corresponding assessment of the harm tion…is because [the health care team] does a kind it will cause” (2/14). Thus, the coexistence of the individ‐ of proportionality between risks and benefits: Which ual and social models produces a conflict between the is riskier, that an unwanted possibly disabled baby is child’s rights “to a healthy existence” (which the mater‐ born or that the woman or girl gets an intrauterine nal disability would put at risk) and the mother’s rights device installed without their consent? (16/161) to form a family. The analysis suggests the medical, moral, and In this eugenic calculation, the object of risk is clearly eugenic models converge in considering disabled parent‐ “the children’s body.” The alleged irresponsibility of dis‐ hood as a moral irresponsibility both for the offspring abled mothers is greater if disabled offspring are sought and the social body. intentionally. The subsequent fragments suggest the social model is “dangerous” as it contradicts the princi‐ 4. Conclusions: Problematising Vulnerability/Risk in ple of “procreative beneficence,” in which parents are Disabled Parenthood legally and morally obliged to choose the “best possible child, without mental or physical impairments” (15/138). The findings show that the vulnerability/risk metaphor The authors equate “children without impairments” with constitutes the pivotal axis of the individual and social “those expected to have the best possible life, or at models. Furthermore, in the individual models, disability least as good a life as everyone else in the world” constitutes a moral and biological defect that makes the (15/120). The salience of the eugenic model has its his‐ disabled body vulnerable to others. The interventions torical roots in the conceptions of the nation’s perfectibil‐ proposed from these models are aimed at preventing ity lying on the foundations of Latin American nation‐ the reproduction of the “deficient body,” achieving its states. The constitution of a stronger, healthier, and rehabilitation, or supervising parenting abilities and the better‐looking population in opposition to bodies con‐ ability to manage all these risks individually. Otherwise, sidered inferior—such as indigenous, black or mestizo— drawing on the child’s rights, removal from home is reproduced the parameters of modernity/colonialism suggested. These interventions align with contemporary (Block, 2002; Danel, 2019). intensive mothering imaginaries (Hays, 1996). Remarkably, excerpt 15/120 homogenises “able‐ Moreover, social models advocate the right of dis‐ bodied people” as if the quality of their life depended abled people to exercise parenthood (CRPD, 2006). Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 345 In this framework, these people are also seen as vul‐ metaphor “disability is vulnerability/risk.” As Edwards nerable: the risk comes from physical, social, and legal (1997, p. 31) says, “what is dangerous is when the barriers imposed by states, able‐bodied society, fami‐ metaphorical nature of the enterprise is forgotten, and lies, and professionals. Proposed interventions in the domain A is talked about in terms of domain B as if it analysed fragments are awareness‐raising programmes were not a metaphor at all.” The analysis suggests that against stigmatisation, initiatives to support disabled par‐ the reviewed models reproduce the vulnerability/risk enting or training programmes for disabled people and metaphor. Future studies addressing the social inclu‐ health and social professionals. Notably, while these sion of disabled parenthood should explore the possi‐ interventions point to the social nature of vulnerabil‐ bility of thinking about disability or childhood without ity, they act on the individual. Latin American decolo‐ resorting to the metaphors of vulnerability/risk. Recent nial perspectives counter this colonial individualism and developments in CDS have advanced both “vulnerabil‐ argue that (a) the rights model endorses the ideal indi‐ ity” and “eco and interdependency” as key concepts vidualised subject of coloniality (Díaz et al., 2021; Pino for a critical perspective on the conditions of possi‐ Morán & Tiseyra, 2019) and (b) the uncritical accep‐ bility for human existence (Pié Balaguer, 2019, p. 27). tance of the social model contributes to the invisibility While vulnerability implies that a subject might be at of structural inequalities and the colonial origin of “dis‐ risk, interdependency raises concerns about the con‐ abling structures” (Pino Morán & Tiseyra, 2019, p. 512). ditions that make disabled parenting possible and the Although some excerpts highlight the importance of con‐ effects of relying on ableism, heterosexism, classism, sidering the particularities of disabled indigenous moth‐ or racism. The metaphor of “disability as interdepen‐ ers (Herrera, 2022), none of the extracts adopts an explic‐ dency” thus challenges the prevailing colonial individual‐ itly decolonial framework of analysis. Conversely, neither ism present in mainstream disability perspectives, repro‐ have most of the studies conducted from a decolo‐ duced in Latin American academic, social, and political nial perspective on disability (Díaz, 2012; Ferrari, 2020) spheres. Incorporating multiple voices and local knowl‐ explicitly addressed parenthood. While one should not edge in an intersectional ecological dialogue on dis‐ assume that all Latin American scholarship on disability abled parenthood has the potential to address subjec‐ and parenthood should adopt a decolonial perspective tive and structural inequalities. Such a critical perspec‐ (or vice versa), it is an intersection worth exploring. tive not only acknowledges the transformative nature of Deepening the already initiated dialogue (Pino disability but also fosters more inclusive and empower‐ Morán & Tiseyra, 2019) between Anglo‐Saxon and Latin ing approaches to disabled parenthood. In sum, future American CDS can help us to study the mutual con‐ research should explore whether the metaphor “disabil‐ struction of the race, gender, and disability categories ity as interdependency” has the potential to address the in relation to parenthood in specific historical and above‐considered pitfalls of vulnerability/risk. geopolitical locations. It also problematises how the medical‐moral‐eugenic device of “truth” disproportion‐ Acknowledgments ately vulnerabilises disabled mothers, constitutes them as risky parental subjects, and generates political hori‐ This article was supported by the Spanish Ministry of zons. In contrast to the exaltation of modern/Western Science and Innovation under grant PID2020–112692RB‐ standardisation, CDS perspectives should uphold the plu‐ C21/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. rality of ways of being, the potency of bodily, func‐ tional, and sensory diversity, and collaborative ways of Conflict of Interests parenting. In this sense, decolonial perspectives pro‐ pose the idea of “ecological dialogue” (Díaz et al., 2021, The author declares no conflict of interests. p. 47). That is, incorporating multiple voices and localised knowledges while giving a privileged space to disabled References people. This is in line with the proposal of Daniels (2020), who highlights that there exist forms of disabled parent‐ Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four ing in which the children are not constituted as vulner‐ essays. University of Texas Press. able. Rather, there is a mutual adjustment between the Block, P. (2002). Sexuality, parenthood, and cognitive dis‐ child and the parental figure. ability in Brazil. Sexuality and Disability, 20(1), 7–28. Lastly, Anglo‐Saxon and Latin American CDS (Núñez, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015230303621 2020; Shildrick, 2000; Vite Hernández, 2020) acknowl‐ Burghardt, M. (2013). Common frailty, constructed edge the constitutive vulnerability of every human being oppression: Tensions and debates on the subject as an ontological, ethical, and political argument to ques‐ of vulnerability. Disability & Society, 28(4), 556–568. tion the univocal relationship between vulnerability and https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.711244 disability (Burghardt, 2013). Nonetheless, disability is Clare, E. (2001). Stolen bodies, reclaimed bodies: Dis‐ transformative since all bodies are vulnerable as poten‐ ability and queerness. Public Culture, 13(3), 359–366. tially disabled. We, therefore, wonder whether the argu‐ https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363‐13‐3‐359 ment of the universality of disability is lexicalising the Contino, A. M. (2013). El dispositivo de discapacidad Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 346 [The apparatus of disability]. Tesis Psicológica, 8(1), the disability movement. University of Leeds’ Disabil‐ Article 1. ity Archive. https://disability‐studies.leeds.ac.uk/ Danel, P. M. (2019). Discapacidad y matriz colonial: wp‐content/uploads/sites/40/library/finkelstein‐ El caso de las políticas de discapacidad en Argentina The‐Social‐Model‐of‐Disability‐and‐the‐Disability‐ [Disability and colonial matrix: The case of disabil‐ Movement.pdf ity policies in Argentina]. In A. Yarza de los Ríos, Fritsch, K. (2017). Contesting the neoliberal affects of dis‐ L. M. Sosa, & B. Pérez (Eds.), Estudios críticos en dis‐ abled parenting: Toward a relational emergence of capacidad. Una polifonía desde América Latina [Criti‐ disability. In M. Rembis (Ed.), Disabling domesticity cal disability studies: A poliphony from Latin America] (pp. 243–267). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ (pp. 75–100). CLACSO‐UNAM. 10.1057/978‐1‐137‐48769‐8_10 Daniels, J. N. (2019). Disabled mothering? Outlawed, García‐Santesmases, A. (2023). El cuerpo deseado: La overlooked and severely prohibited: Interrogating conversación pendiente entre feminismo y antica‐ ableism in motherhood. Social Inclusion, 7(1), pacitismo [The desired body: The pending conver‐ 114–123. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v7i1.1551 sation between feminism and anti‐ableism]. Kaótica Daniels, J. N. (2020). Exploring the psychological and Libros. emotional impact of ableism in education and moth‐ Gesser, M., Block, P., & Guedes de Mello, A. (2020). erhood: A tale of two parts [Unpublished PhD dis‐ Estudos de deficiência: Interseccionalidade, anti‐ sertation]. University of Sheffield. https://etheses. habilidade e emancipação social [Disability stud‐ whiterose.ac.uk/27922/ ies: Intersectionality, anti‐ableism and social eman‐ Danow, D. K. (1991). The thought of Michael Bakhtin. cipation]. In M. Gesser, G. Böck, & P. H. Lopes From word to culture. McMillan. (Eds.), Estudos da deficiência: Interseccionalidade, Díaz, R. (2012). Discapacidad y mirada colonial. Reflex‐ anti‐habilidade e emancipação social [Disability stud‐ iones desde perspectivas feministas y descoloniales ies: Intersectionality, anti‐ableism and social emanci‐ [Disability and colonial gaze: Reflections from femi‐ pation] (pp. 17–36). Editora CRV. nist and decolonial perspectives]. In M. E. Almeida Greenspan, S., Budd, K. S., & Vietze, P. M. (1986). & M. A. Angelino (Eds.), Debates y perspectivas en Research on mentally retarded parents. In J. J. torno a la discapacidad en América Latina [Debates Gallagher (Ed.), Families of handicapped persons: and perspectives regarding disability in Latin Amer‐ Research, programs, and policy issues (pp. 115–127). ica] (pp. 27–61). Escuela de Trabajo Social, Universi‐ Paul H. Brookes. dad Nacional de Entre Ríos (UNER). Guedes de Mello, A. (2021, February 12). Corpos Díaz, S., Fernández, I., Gómez, A. P., Mancebo, M., & (in)capazes [(Un)able bodies]. Jacobin Brasil. https:// Míguez, M. N. (2021). Deconstrucción del sujeto de la jacobin.com.br/2021/02/corpos‐incapazes discapacidad desde la perspectiva decolonial [Decon‐ Guénoun, T., Essadek, A., Clesse, C., Mauran‐Mignorat, struction of the subject of disability from a decolo‐ M., Veyron‐Lacroix, E., Ciccone, A., & Smaniotto, nial perspective]. In P. M. Danel, B. Pérez Ramírez, & B. (2022). The desire for parenthood among indi‐ A. Yarza de los Ríos (Eds.), ¿Quién es el sujeto de la dis‐ viduals with intellectual disabilities: Systematic capacidad? Exploraciones, configuraciones y poten‐ review. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities. Advance cialidades [Who is the subject of disability? Explo‐ online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/174462 rations, configurations and potentials] (pp. 35–70). 95221141946 CLACSO. Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of mother‐ Duffy, G. (2008). Pragmatic analysis. In A. Klotz & D. hood. Yale University Press. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative methods in international Herrera, F. (2022). “La mamá soy yo”: Experiencias relations: A pluralist guide (pp. 168–186). Palgrave parentales de madres y padres con discapacidad Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/97802305841 en Chile [“La mamá soy yo”: Parental experiences 29_11 of mothers and fathers with disabilities in Chile]. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. SAGE. Psicologia em Estudo, 27. https://doi.org/10.4025/ http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uab/detail. psicolestud.v27i0.58850 action?docID=483376 Inguanzo, I. (2020). Construcción de marcos‐puente El Hussein, M., Jakubec, S., & Osuji, J. (2015). Assessing en el movimiento de personas indígenas con dis‐ the FACTS: A mnemonic for teaching and learning the capacidad [Construction of bridge frameworks in rapid assessment of rigor in qualitative research stud‐ the movement of indigenous people with disabil‐ ies. The Qualitative Report, 20(8), 1182–1184. ities]. Andamios, Revista de Investigación Social, Ferrari, M. B. (2020). Feminismos descoloniales y dis‐ 17(42), Article 42. https://doi.org/10.29092/uacm. capacidad: Hacia una conceptualización de la colo‐ v17i42.747 nialidad de la capacidad [Decolonial feminisms and Longmore, P. (1997). Conspicuous contribution and disability: Towards a conceptualization of the colo‐ American cultural dilemmas: Telethon rituals of niality of ability]. Nómadas, 52, 115–131. cleansing and renewal. In D. Mitchell & S. Sny‐ Finkelstein, V. (2007). The “social model of disability” and der (Eds.), The body and physical difference (pp. Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 347 134–158). University of Michigan Press. https:// nomadas.n52a4 www.press.umich.edu/11114/body_and_physical_ Palacios, A., & Romañach, J. (2006). El modelo de la diver‐ difference sidad: La bioética y los derechos humanos como her‐ Lopes, P. (2018). “Eu posso ser mãe, sim”: Processos de ramientas para alcanzar la plena dignidad en la diver‐ significação acerca da gestação e da maternidade de sidad funcional [The diversity model: Bioethics and mulheres com deficiência [“Eu posso ser mãe, sim”: human rights as tools for dignity in diversity]. Diversi‐ Processes of signification on pregnancy and mother‐ tas. https://e‐archivo.uc3m.es/handle/10016/9899 hood of women with disabilities] [Unpublished Mas‐ Pié Balaguer, A. (2019). La insurreccion de la vulnerabili‐ ter’s thesis]. Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina. dad. Para una pedagogía de los cuidados y la resisten‐ López Radrigán, C. (2020). Estudios feministas de dis‐ cia [The insurrection of vulnerability. For a pedagogy capacidad en Iberoamérica: Una aproximación al of care and resistance]. Edicions de la Universitat de estado de la discusión [Feminist disability studies Barcelona. in Ibero‐America: An approach to the state of the Pino Morán, J. A., & Tiseyra, M. V. (2019). Encuentro discussion]. Nómadas, 52, 97–113. https://doi.org/ entre la perspectiva decolonial y los estudios de 10.30578/nomadas.n52a6 la discapacidad [Decolonial perspective and disabil‐ López Radrigán, C., & Ramírez Fuentes, J. (2022). Dis‐ ity studies meet]. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias positivo de medicalización y discapacidad: Un análi‐ Sociales, 10(2), 497–521. sis crítico desde el Sur [Medicalisation and disabil‐ Quale, A. (2002). The role of metaphor in scientific ity apparatus: A critical analysis from the South]. epistemology: A constructivist perspective and con‐ Andamios, 19(49), 45–67. http://doi.org/10.29092/ sequences for science education. Science & Edu‐ uacm.v19i49.919 cation, 11(5), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: Lugones, M. (2008). Colonialidad y género [Gender and 1016511131117 coloniality]. Tabula Rasa, 9, 73–102. Sanmiquel‐Molinero, L., & Pujol‐Tarrés, J. (2020). Putting Malacrida, C. (2019). Mothering and disability: From emotions to work: The role of affective disablism and eugenics to newgenics. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, ableism in the constitution of the dis/abled subject. & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability Disability & Society, 35(4), 542–569. https://doi.org/ studies (pp. 467–485). Routledge. 10.1080/09687599.2019.1650719 McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Shildrick, M. (2000). Becoming vulnerable: Contagious Signs, 30(3), 1771–1800. https://doi.org/10.1086/ encounters and the ethics of risk. Journal of Medical 426800 Humanities, 21, 215–227. Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thomas, C. (2006). Disability and gender: Reflections on Blackwell Publishers. theory and research. Scandinavian Journal of Dis‐ Mey, J. L. (2012). Anticipatory pragmatics. Journal ability Research, 8(2/3), 177–185. https://doi.org/ of Pragmatics, 44(5), 705–708. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15017410600731368 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.020 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Per‐ Míguez, M. N. (2020). Discapacidad y sexualidad en sons With Disabilities, 2006. https://www.ohchr.org/ América Latina: Hacia la construcción del acom‐ en/hrbodies/crpd/pages/conventionrightspersons pañamiento sexual [Disability and sexuality in withdisabilities.aspx Latin America: Towards the construction of sexual Villa Rojas, J. P. (2020). Ammarantha Wass: Expe‐ support]. Nómadas, 52, 133–147. https://doi.org/ riencia trans‐chueca de una maestra en la Uni‐ 10.30578/nomadas.n52a8 versidad Pedagógica Nacional (UPN) [Ammarantha Mitchell, D., & Snyder, S. (2019). Foreword to the new Wass: Trans‐Chueca experience of a teacher at the edition. In H.‐J. Stiker (Ed.), A history of disability (pp. National Pedagogical University (UPN)]. Nómadas, vii–xvi). Michigan University Press. 52, 243–255. Munévar, D. I. (Ed.). (2021). Tramando coaliciones antica‐ Vite Hernández, D. (2020). La fragilidad como resistencia pacitistas [Weaving anti‐ableist coalitions]. Universi‐ contracapacitista: De agencia y experiencia situada dad Nacional de Colombia. [Fragility as anti‐ableist resistance: On agency and Núñez Parra, L. (2020). Discapacidad y trabajo: La indi‐ situated experience]. Nómadas, 52, 13–27. https:// vidualización de la inclusión bajo lógicas coloniales doi.org/10.30578/nomadas.n52a1 contemporáneas [Disability and work: The individual‐ Wolbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Develop‐ ization of inclusion under contemporary colonial log‐ ment, 51(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev. ics]. Nómadas, 52, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.30578/ 2008.17 Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 348 About the Authors Laura Sanmiquel‐Molinero completed a BSc in psychology and a master’s degree in psychosocial research and intervention at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Spain. She is currently a funded PhD candidate in social psychology at the UAB (FPU17/01545) and is a part of the project Repro‐Flows in Europe, North Africa and Latin America: People’s and Gametes’ Mobilities in the Fragmented Context of Trans‐National Regulation of Assisted Reproduction and Adoption (PID2020‐ 112692RB‐C21). Joan Pujol‐Tarrés (PhD) is a tenured professor in the Department of Social Psychology at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. His research combines material and discursive perspectives in the analy‐ sis of disablism, intersectionality, LBTIQ+ issues, structural racism, affective orderings, and narrative inquiry. He is currently a part of the project Repro‐Flows in Europe, North Africa and Latin America: People’s and Gametes’ Mobilities in the Fragmented Context of Trans‐National Regulation of Assisted Reproduction and Adoption (PID2020‐112692RB‐C21). Marisela Montenegro (PhD) holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the Central University of Venezuela and a PhD in social psychology from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. She is a pro‐ fessor at the Department of Social Psychology (UAB). She analyses social intervention from feminist, postcolonial, and anti‐ableist perspectives. Marisela is currently a part of the project Repro‐Flows in Europe, North Africa and Latin America: People’s and Gametes’ Mobilities in the Fragmented Context of Trans‐National Regulation of Assisted Reproduction and Adoption (PID2020‐112692RB‐C21). Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 338–349 349