Inescapable Essentialism: Bisexually-Identified Women's Strategies in the Late 80s and Early 90s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the formation of new sexually-identified groups the rhetoric and language used becomes of paramount importance. Who is defined as a member? Who is not? What do the members have in common? What is different? The rhetoric used by bisexually-identified women, in forming communities, political movements, and theory in the late eighties and early nineties, provides an opening in which to analyze the essentialist notions employed to define and police developing bisexual women's territory. What had hoped to be a challenge to traditional identity politics, such as 'lesbian' and 'straight', ended for some in a narrow innate definition of what bisexuality is and how it is to be expressed within a new bisexual-identity politics and community. Others tended to throw bisexuality into abstraction and see it not as a lived sexuality or identity politic but a theoretical perspective in which to disrupt dichotomous sexual categories. However, in both approaches the language used renders 'bisexuality' as an identity and concept limited and problematic. It appears what has been thought of as a 'third-space' for the disruption of sexuality does not, in this case, escapable essentialism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".