““The mannerisms that help define gender - the way in which people walk,swing their hips, gesture with their hands, move their mouths and eyes when they talk, take up space - are all based upon how non disabled people move…The construct of gender depends not only upon the male body and female body, but also on the non disabled body.””
— Eli Clare, Exile and Pride: Disability, Queerness, and Liberation
“I no longer have a gender. Rather, I have a wheelchair.”
—Christina Crosby, A Body, Undone.
This includes all disabilities, not just physical disabilities.
No actually.
These are very obviously two references to how gender is perceived through physical markers--the extent to which your hips swing, how you curl your hands in the air, where your eyes look when your mouth opens--and both writers are making claims that the acknowledgement of kinship depends on comfort with the physical. That the same classifications of physical markers allow the figurative human to classify the person into "man" or "woman" depend of adherence to certain norms, and those with visibly classifiable disabilities raise that sense of unease that one would experience by not being able to classify gender.
Part of critical thinking is recognising that certain contexts are more pertinent than others, and if you make wildly deviated claims like you just did, you better have a pretty good argument to back it up.
