{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02368692070030896, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.147058823529412, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
"Forced sterilisation": clarifying and challenging intuitions and models.

In the context of the current Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee Inquiry entitled "The Involuntary or Coerced Sterilisation of People with Disabilities in Australia" this column considers the history of judicial decisions and associated reports and articles concerning the issues raised by sterilisation and menstrual management for intellectually disabled women and girls in Australia. It is by no means an exhaustive coverage, but it critically analyses a number of concepts and arguments, including terminological questions, models of disability, conceptualisations of human and reproductive rights, definitions of last resort treatment, usage of the therapeutic/non-therapeutic distinction, ideas about eugenics, and the contested notion of best interests, among others. It is intended as a critical, conceptual contribution to the current debates concerning "forced sterilisation".