MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7093486469

Lesbian Mothers & Gay Fathers: Overt and Subconscious Homophobic Biases Concerning Parental Fitness

2010· article· W7093486469 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueDalhousie journal of legal studies · 2010
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueReligion, Theology, History, Judaism, Christianity
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSubconsciousPresumptionLesbianAdversarial systemHomosexualityMoralityHuman sexualityFreudian slip
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Disputes in family law, particularly in child custody and access cases, often involve emotionally charged parties. These parties, when pitted against one other in an adversarial system, often seek to discredit, impugn or malign the opposing party in an effort to influence an outcome in their favour. The judiciary, as the triers of fact and arbiters in these cases, must consider the often widely divergent positions of each party, and apply an impartial analysis and judgment that considers the best interests of the children at the centre of these disputes. Despite the presumption of judicial impartiality, it is reasonable to assume that as participating members of society, and often as parents themselves, members of the judiciary will rely upon their own senses of morality in applying the law, assessing the merits of each party’s positions, and ultimately rendering a decision in each case. The assessment of parenting capability and skill (or lack thereof) in a custody and access dispute is a highly contextualized analysis and is dependent upon the fact scenarios of each case. When the issue of a parent’s sexuality is raised, the dynamics of overt and subconscious homophobic bias are introduced into the dispute. Typically one of the litigants has raised the issue, and the judge is then compelled to address it in the decision-making process. In considering the subject matter of this article – child custody and access disputes – it is worthy to note the definition of homophobia: “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” While the litigants in child custody and access cases are often not on the friendliest of terms, homophobia does not generally present itself as hateful speech or violent actions as these are often manifested in other contexts. Rather, homophobia, in the form of overt statements about or subconscious bias towards the parenting capabilities of a gay or lesbian parent, if present in the minds of the litigants or the judiciary, can result in influence on the final outcome of these disputes. The question of parenting capability, fitness, and developmental impacts upon children of gay and lesbian parents is much broader than the context of custody and access disputes where one of the parents is alleged, or acknowledged, to be gay or lesbian. Same sex couples and gay and lesbian single adults who have become or wish to become parents endure many of the same biases, stereotypes, and resistance with respect to their abilities to parent and raise children in a healthy and supportive environment. This paper focuses only on the issue as it arises in context of litigation over child custody and access cases where one or both of the litigants is alleged or acknowledged to be gay or lesbian. Specifically, this article attempts to elucidate primary differences in perceived parenting fitness of lesbian mothers and gay fathers, provide insight into factors fueling these perceptions, and discuss effects upon custody and access decisions in family law. In support of this objective, a qualitative case review of Canadian custody and access disputes in the last 30 years was undertaken with the goal of identifying the extent to which overt or subconscious homophobic attitudes or bias affects the tone and outcomes of these cases. Additionally, the paper will consider whether bias is different toward gay fathers and lesbian mothers and whether there has been any discernable change in these biases over time.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,532
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,008
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDalhousie journal of legal studiesMême sujetReligion, Theology, History, Judaism, ChristianityTravaux en français237 207