No Intersectionality Without Global Justice: A Reflection on the CRPD 32nd Session

alt text: two books on disbility rights and justice placed at the intersection of overlapping shadows

There are real signs of change in the way the rights of LGBTIQ+ persons with disabilities are being recognized at the international level. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been steadily moving forward, bringing more visibility to issues at the intersection of disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). After years of silence, there is growing space to name these realities openly—and to demand concrete action. Yet, alongside these steps forward, challenges remain, especially when it comes to ensuring that all regions and all communities are equally seen, heard, and protected.

My focus in this post is specifically on how SOGIESC issues were addressed during the Committee’s 32nd session, held in March 2025 in Geneva, and what lessons we can draw for the broader struggle for intersectional justice.

 

Key Findings: Canada and the EU

 

Among the six countries reviewed, Canada and the European Union stood out as examples where the Committee recognized and addressed SOGIESC concerns in meaningful ways.

For Canada, the Committee’s observations acknowledged serious ongoing challenges, notably persistent ableism against 2SLGBTQI+ persons with disabilities, particularly in healthcare systems. Importantly, the Committee did not stop at critique: it urged Canada to adopt intersectional, comprehensive, and cross-sectoral strategies, underpinned by robust data collection, to advance the right to equality and non-discrimination.

It is significant that the rights of 2SLGBTQI+ persons with disabilities were named explicitly—reflecting progress in how these complex identities are understood within the UN system. The Committee also condemned the historical and ongoing practice of forced and coerced sterilization, including of intersex children—an important step toward truth, accountability, and redress.

 

Similarly, in its review of the European Union, the Committee made important observations. It expressed concern over the withdrawal of the Equal Treatment Directive proposal, recognizing the negative impact this decision could have on promoting non-discrimination. At the same time, the Committee made strong, forward-looking recommendations: to revive efforts to pass the Directive and to strengthen explicit legal protections against multiple and intersectional discrimination, particularly where disability intersects with identities such as LGBTIQ+ status.

The acknowledgment of the heightened risks of violence and abuse faced by LGBTIQ+ persons with disabilities, as well as the urgent need for disaggregated data collection, reflects a growing understanding of intersectionality in practice—not just in theory.

 

In both cases, the Committee’s work demonstrates the potential of the CRPD system to address SOGIESC concerns meaningfully and concretely. These examples show that when the Committee fully engages with the realities at the intersection of disability and diverse SOGIESC, it can contribute to real progress and visibility at the international level.

 

The Bigger Picture: Intersectionality and Regional Discrepancies

 

Before diving into regional disparities, it is important to acknowledge the positive shift reflected in the Committee’s observations on Canada and the European Union. The mentions of SOGIESC / LGBTI issues were not isolated but embedded within a broader understanding of multiple and intersecting factors—gender, age, religion or belief, ethnicity, migration situation, national origin, and, crucially, economic situation and standard of living.

 

This framing matters deeply. It reflects the reality that we do not live single-issue lives. Intersectionality is not simply about listing identities; it is about recognizing the intertwined systems of oppression that shape our experiences, often creating specific manifestations of exclusion but also offering the foundations for solidarity actions and holistic justice responses.

 

By putting SOGIESC / LGBTI in the context of different factors instead of a separate issue, the CRPD Committee may show an understanding that rights cannot be siloed—and that justice must be approached in an interconnected, collective way.

 

While these advances are encouraging, a wider view reveals persistent gaps.

 

Among the six states reviewed, only two—both from the Global North—received concluding observations explicitly mentioning SOGIESC / LGBTI. Reviews of Viet Nam, Tuvalu, Palau, and the Dominican Republic lacked this explicit focus.

 

Importantly, broader sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) are increasingly recognized—reflecting the hard-won battles of feminist, queer, and disability activists who demanded bodily autonomy and dignity long before such language was welcomed in international forums.

For instance, in the case of Tuvalu, the Committee recommended raising awareness of ‘the rights of persons with disabilities with respect to sexual expression,’ a very welcome step forward.

Yet, even in such examples, explicit mentions of SOGIESC / LGBTI realities were missing.

 

This is not coincidental.

 

In my ongoing PhD research, which examines three UN treaty bodies—CEDAW, CRPD, and CERD, I found that over 51% of CRPD mentions of SOGIESC / LGBTI issues concern Western states—even though these states account for only 15% of CRPD ratifications.

For comparison, in CEDAW’s case, Western states are 15% of ratifications but only 21% of SOGIESC / LGBTI mentions.

 

This points to clear regional disparities that need urgent attention.

 

There are many reasons for this imbalance: 

• Unequal resources for activism: activist groups in the Global South face restrictive environments and limited funding. 
• Growing distrust of the UN system: Across many regions and sectors, there is increasing skepticism toward the UN, seen by many as distant, bureaucratic, and rooted in colonial and imperial legacies. 
• Structural bias embedded in the system: The UN was built on global power asymmetries and continues to reproduce them, even though mechanisms for civil society participation have expanded over time and today there are far more opportunities for engagement than decades ago.

Still, I refuse to believe that the CRPD, as a tool for dismantling ableism, cisheteronormativity, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression, is irrelevant to communities outside the Global North. The real opportunity lies in building solidarity across movements and regions to make sure the CRPD framework lives up to its transformative potential.

 

Moving Forward: Solidarity, Justice, and Reimagining Advocacy

 

Civil society organizations—especially those representing groups facing intersectional violence and discrimination—make extraordinary efforts to engage with a UN system that was not designed for them.

Yet too often, their voices are sidelined.

 

Take Intersex Asia’s submission for Viet Nam: despite presenting a clear, well-argued report that aligned with CRPD standards and past practices, no specific recommendations on intersex rights were included in the Committee’s concluding observations.

This is a missed opportunity—and a signal that more must be done.

 

If we are serious about human rights, civil society and grassroots voices must not just be heard—they must shape the outcomes.

Only then can the UN human rights system move from abstraction to genuine, lived relevance.

 

Ultimately, building a just world will require more than critique. It demands that we rebuild advocacy together, reimagine solidarity across struggles, and reconstruct the systems that have excluded too many for too long.

I hope the CRPD Committee will stand with us in that effort—not as distant arbiters, but as allies, listeners, and partners in change.