Introduction to the Special Issue on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Counselling Psychology Introduction au numéro spécial sur l'orientation sexuelle et l'identité sexuelle en psychologie du counseling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thematic issue is the first in the history of the Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy dedicated to research focusing on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) counselling practice. It was approximately 18 months ago that we announced our original call for proposals, which yielded 10 submissions and dozens of communications supporting this endeavour. The end result is a collection of six articles that explore and discuss areas pertaining to intersectionality theory and sexual identities, ethical practice and multiple relationships, wisdom and resilience, female masculinity, gender-identity reform, and masculinities in female-to-male trans-identified individuals. We hope that readers learn from and reflect upon the contributions housed within this special issue.Throughout the iterative process of assessing original and revised submissions, one question arose continually: With the current and political climate supporting LGBT individuals in Canada, why is a special issue necessary? Embedded in this question, of course, is the assumption that counselling practice immediately reflects the sociocultural and political changes that occur in a society. More troubling is the implicit assumption that marital equality somehow translates into affirmative counselling practice with LGBT clients. Historically, and within some present-day practices, clinicians were/are drawn to the practice of pathological othering (Robinson, 2012; Smith, Shin & Officer, 2012). Otherness represents a social construction for the representation of those who are seen as undesirable (Arthur, Merali, & Djuraskovic, 2010, p. 304). Such practices have pathologized and rendered non-hegemonic identities objectionable, and sadly continue to do so. For instance, conversion/reparative therapies (i.e., sexual orientation change efforts) and other harmful interventions remain in practice despite regulatory bodies asserting their use is unethical (Rosile, Jones, & Byrd, 2012; Tuffo rd, Newman, Brennan, Craig, & Woodford, 2012).Both historical and current literatures suggest that counsellors, psychologists, and other allied health professionals require additional insights, directives, and supports in the provision of culturally relevant and sensitive service provisions for LG BT clients (Alderson, 2013; Johnson, 2012). However, the ability to provide relevant and affirmative counselling does not exist in a vacuum: it is dependent on exposure to theoretical and empirical work that offers a voice to sexual and gender minorities. The creation and dissemination of this type of knowledge has played, and will continue to play, a significant role in the evolution and shaping of scholarship that is uniquely LGBT affirmative (Clarke & Peel, 2008; Rivers, 2008).In closing, we invite readers to increase their current understanding of issues salient to LGBT persons, and to challenge mental health practices that serve to disempower. We advocate striving toward affirmative efforts that safeguard the authenticity and integrity of members of sexual and gender minorities. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.015 |
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".