F*cking with the Canadian Guidelines on Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Queer Disruption to Homonormativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Queer people present interesting challenges to sexual health care because they often defy dominant understandings of gender, sex, and sexuality. When it comes to sexual health assessments, most practitioners operate according to a set of heteronormative assumptions or misinformation that too often has life and death consequences for people, particularly queer people. To provide much needed guidance and clinical recommendations on how best to prevent and manage sexually transmitted infections (STIs) prevalent in diverse populations, the Public Health Agency of Canada revised the Canadian Guidelines on Sexually Transmitted Infections in 2006. I examine this policy and speculate about its effect on the health of queer people. I argue that its additive approach does not meet the needs of queer people because it is entrenched in both a heteronormative and homonormative agenda in health care policy. Focusing on the latter, I assert that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender organizations take on this homonormative agenda, which promotes and defines an acceptable gay and lesbian population and negates questioning the confines of gender, sex, and sexual identity. This omission of other queers (trans, intersex, and those between and outside of existing boundaries of sex, gender, and sexuality) is a specific neoliberal political manoeuvre that results in the dominance of a homonormative agenda in sexual health care to the detriment of queer people's health.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".