Disabling Norms, Affirming Desires: A Scoping Review on Disabled Women’s Sexual Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Great work!

The authors need to identify what country they are in and situate the research geographically before p. 5. Why did the so-called productions have to be available in Portuguese, English, or Spanish?

The use of language such as "scientific outputs" (and "productions") in reference to qualitative papers about sexuality and disablement is foreign to me, and may be to others.

I appreciate that the authors situated themselves in terms of identity, but I would have liked to have this information at the beginning of the paper, not on p. 4.

Why wasn't a disabled woman included in the paper? This would have enhanced the credentials of the research in the spirit of "nothing about us without us."

Disabled trans women are missing. This is odd because Harner and Johnson address this important issue.

This point is for the editors: the font size in the References doesn't seem consistent.

Author Response

We would like to thank you very much for taking the time to carefully review our manuscript “Disabling Norms, Affirming Desires: A Scoping Review on Disabled Women’s Sexual Practices” and for your suggestions for improvement.

Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted (yellow) in the resubmitted file.

Comments 1: The authors need to identify what country they are in and situate the research geographically before p. 5. Why did the so-called productions have to be available in Portuguese, English, or Spanish?

Response 1: Since our scoping review aimed to include studies from any geographical context, we initially did not foreground the authors’ country in the corpus of the manuscript, as we also overlooked that, in the context of blind peer review, information about the research team's location is not visible. However, we fully understand that the language inclusion criteria influence the selected literature and that situating the research team geographically helps clarify this methodological choice. In response, we have now included this information in the methods section (p. 4, line 168), specifying that the authors are based in Portugal, as well as an clarification regarding the eligibility criteria (p. 4, lines 155–157): “Only studies available in Portuguese, English, or Spanish were considered, as these are the languages in which the reviewing authors are fluent, thereby ensuring an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the results.”

Comments 2: The use of language such as "scientific outputs" (and "productions") in reference to qualitative papers about sexuality and disablement is foreign to me, and may be to others.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised the language accordingly and now refer to the qualitative papers included in the review as “publications” (p. 3, line 137) and “records” (p. 4, line 148), following the terminology recommended in the PRISMA 2020 statement.

Comments 3: I appreciate that the authors situated themselves in terms of identity, but I would have liked to have this information at the beginning of the paper, not on p. 4.

Response 3: We value the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion regarding the placement of the authors’ positionality statement. While we understand the importance of situating researchers early in the manuscript, we chose to include this information in the methods section, specifically in the subsection describing the analytical process. This decision reflects our intention to frame author positionality not only as context but as an explicit analytic tool that informed our interpretative approach. In this sense, we considered the methods section the most appropriate location, as it aligns with reflexive thematic analysis and supports transparency in how the knowledge presented was produced. We attempted to incorporate this statement earlier in the manuscript but found that doing so disrupted the flow and focus of the introduction. We hope this clarification is satisfactory and remain open to further suggestions.

Comments 4: Why wasn't a disabled woman included in the paper? This would have enhanced the credentials of the research in the spirit of "nothing about us without us."

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s important observation regarding the absence of disabled women in the authorship team. We fully agree that research informed by lived experience is essential, and we recognize that including disabled women in the design and analysis of this study would have significantly strengthened its credibility and alignment with the principle of “nothing about us without us.” In response, we have now explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the conclusion (p. 14, line 526-532) and reflect on the implications this has for the interpretation of findings. We emphasize the need for future research led by disabled women as a vital step toward producing more representative and impactful knowledge, in order to shape policies and interventions that better reflect their realities.

Comments 5: Disabled trans women are missing. This is odd because Harner and Johnson address this important issue.

Response 5: We agree that the absence of disabled trans women is a critical omission in our review. In reviewing the studies retrieved through our search, we found that while some publications address the experiences of trans disabled individuals, such as stigma, discrimination, and access to services, they often do not focus on sexual practices, which was the specific focus of our review. For instance, Harner and Johnson’s work highlights the systemic barriers trans disabled people face when accessing social services but does not explore their sexual practices in depth. We have now explicitly addressed this limitation in the manuscript (p. 14, lines 520-523), and we emphasize the need for future research to engage with the sexual practices, agency, and desires of disabled trans women in order to build a more inclusive and representative body of knowledge.

Comments 6: This point is for the editors: the font size in the References doesn't seem consistent.

Response 6: Thank you for alerting us. We believe we have fixed this issue now.

We hope that the revisions and clarifications provided throughout this response adequately address the reviewer’s insightful comments and concerns.

We believe these suggestions have strengthened the manuscript and welcome any further feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Please find my detailed comments and suggestions in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank you very much for taking the time to carefully review our manuscript “Disabling Norms, Affirming Desires: A Scoping Review on Disabled Women’s Sexual Practices” and for your suggestions for improvement.

Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted (yellow) in the resubmitted file.

Comments 1: The introduction presents a well-structured rationale for the study, establishing a clear link between sexual citizenship, disability, and structural oppression.

I especially appreciated the attention given to the intersectionality of disability and gender, and the nuanced critique of normative assumptions surrounding sexuality. That said, it might still be worth very briefly referencing whether previous reviews or syntheses have attempted to approach this topic — even to clarify how this scoping review adds something new to the field.

Tiny thing — in line 69, the phrase “further reinforcing the prejudice of disabled women as asexual beings” is accurate, but I initially read it twice to fully grasp its syntax. Maybe worth a light edit? Or maybe it’s just me, sorry.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation regarding the positioning of our study within existing literature reviews. To address this, we have added a reference to previous reviews, highlighting how they focus on the challenges disabled women face in their sexual spheres (lines 89–97), to clarify how our work offers a complementary contribution by foregrounding disabled women’s adaptive practices in the pursuit of pleasurable and affirming sexual lives. We have also revised the phrasing on line 69 to improve clarity, replacing the original with: “which reinforce the misconception that disabled women are inherently asexual”. We hope these changes address the reviewer’s suggestions and strengthen the introduction.

Comments 2: The methodological section is clearly articulated and aligns with established scoping review protocols.

One point worth addressing more explicitly is the limited number of studies (n=7) included in the final synthesis. While the authors note the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the databases consulted, it remains unclear whether this small number reflects a genuine scarcity of empirical research in the field or potentially restrictive search parameters. A short acknowledgment of this limitation — and its implications for the comprehensiveness and transferability of the findings — would strengthen the methodological transparency of the review.

Also, I got a bit curious about whether the authors considered grey literature or non-indexed journals — although I understand this might fall outside the scope.

Response 2: A clarification was added to the conclusion section to address the limitations regarding the small number of studies included (p. 14, line 510). We note that the inclusion of only seven records reflects a genuine scarcity of empirical research focused on the practical aspects of disabled women’s sexual lives. Furthermore, the methods section was revised to more clearly state the exclusion of grey literature (p.4, lines 144-146), including non-indexed sources such as reports, commentaries, and other non-peer-reviewed materials. These adjustments aim to strengthen the transparency of the scoping review process.

Comments 3: The decision to present results and discussion in a combined section is understandable given the qualitative and interpretive nature of the data, especially within a reflexive thematic analysis framework. However, in some places it becomes slightly difficult to distinguish where the description of the studies ends and the authors' interpretation begins. A clearer structural separation — perhaps through subheadings or transitional phrases — could help readers follow the analytical narrative more easily.

Response 3: We acknowledge the potential challenge in distinguishing between the description of studies and our interpretive analysis in a combined results and discussion section. While the reflexive thematic analysis approach encourages integration, we recognize the importance of guiding readers clearly through the analytical narrative. In response, we revised the section to include additional transitional phrases that signal shifts from descriptive content to author interpretation. We also ensured that references are more clearly attributed to specific studies, allowing our analytical voice to stand out more explicitly. These adjustments (highlighted in yellow throughout the section) aim to improve clarity while preserving the interpretive depth of the synthesis.

Comments 4: The manuscript is generally well-structured, with logical progression from context to methodology, thematic findings, and conclusions. The writing is and references coherent and consistently aligned with the epistemological framework adopted.

Regarding the references, the paper demonstrates solid engagement with both foundational and recent literature in feminist disability studies and sexual rights.

I noticed one duplicated WHO reference in the footnotes and bibliography; likely a copy-paste oversight.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback on the structure, coherence, and theoretical alignment of the manuscript, as well as the engagement with relevant literature. In response to the note about a possible duplicate WHO reference, we carefully reviewed both the footnotes and the bibliography but were unable to locate a duplicate entry. If there is a specific citation that may have caused confusion, we are happy to revise it accordingly.

Comments 5: The abstract effectively summarizes paper. One small point: although the structure is clear, I wonder whether the phrase “emphasizing their agency to overcome physical and structural barriers” might be slightly reworked, as it reads a bit repetitive alongside “diversity of sexual experiences” just before.

Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion to improve clarity and style in our abstract. We revised the sentence to read: “Findings illustrate the diversity of sexual experiences among disabled women and highlight their active role in overcoming the barriers imposed by their bodies and environments” (lines 14-16). While maintaining the original intent, we hope this edit enhances intelligibility and avoids redundancy.

Comments 6: The conclusion it’s fine, however, the section could benefit from a more robust closing synthesis — perhaps by explicitly stating the main contribution of the review to the field, and by highlighting one or two concrete implications for policy or professional practice. This would help the paper end on a stronger, more actionable note.

Response 6: To address the suggestion for a more conclusive synthesis, we revised the conclusion to more clearly articulate the contribution of the review. On page 34, lines 503–508, we now state that the mapping of concrete strategies used by disabled women to achieve pleasure and sexual well-being can provide a practical resource for healthcare professionals, therapists, and educators. These findings offer actionable examples, such as alternative sexual positions and assistive techniques, that can inform inclusive sexual health education and support in practice. We also emphasized the importance of research led by disabled women, as experts of their own experience, to inform evidence-based policies and interventions that respect and reflect their realities. Additionally, we added a paragraph (page 14, lines 532–538) highlighting the importance and calling for interdisciplinary collaboration between the technological, healthcare, and social sciences sectors to develop innovations that enhance sexual agency and access to pleasure for disabled women. We believe these additions strengthen the conclusion by clarifying the review’s relevance and practical implications.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their time, thoughtful engagement, and constructive feedback. The suggestions offered were highly valuable and contributed to strengthening the clarity, coherence, and overall impact of our manuscript.

We hope the revisions have appropriately addressed the reviewer’s comments and concerns, and we remain open to any further comments or recommendations!