Queerly Familial: Canadian Histories of Queer Reproduction, Parenting, and Activism, 1968-2005
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Following the first federal Divorce Act in 1968, Canadian family law judges considered a parent’s sexuality relevant to divorce, child custody and child access determinations. In particular, judges were concerned about the potential impact queer parents might have on their children’s psychosexual development. As a result, queer parents who were deemed to be discreet were more likely to retain custody or access. Motivated by queer family law cases, social scientists responded to judges’ concerns, asking whether queer parents were in fact more likely to raise queer children without challenging the underlying heteronormativity of the question. A consensus quickly developed that there was no difference in the outcomes of children raised by lesbian mothers compared to those raised by heterosexual mothers. Print media subsequently translated these findings to a wider public. Media also reported on specific family law cases, although mainstream, right-wing, and alternative periodicals framed such discussions in dramatically different ways. Queer parenting activists in turn developed robust media strategies to influence public opinion and to respond to the heteronormativity of family law courtrooms. Queer parents and their allies organized initially in defence of custody rights before going on to fight for access to fertility clinics and sperm banks, and for the legal recognition of planned queer families. \n\nThrough an examination of legal, medical, media, activist, and oral history sources, I put expert and experiential discourses in conversation with one another. I argue that, since the 1970s, normativity is the primary structure through which queer families have been understood. Whether through judges’ emphasis on discretion or the no-difference consensus among social scientists, experts compared queer parents to their heteronormative counterparts, and deemed it a success when they approximated normativity. Queer families have had to respond to this hegemonic discursive framing of queer family life even when they have explicitly rejected a politics of normativity. In the following chapters, I explore how the uneven, incomplete, and at times bitterly resisted normalization (and thus homogenization) of queer family experience has played out in specific contexts: in family law courtrooms, social scientific research, print media, and activist organizing.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».