Re-Imagining Feminist Theory: Transgender Identity, Feminism, and the Law.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La descente de la police en septembre 2000 au Pussy Palace, hammam pour femmes a Toronto, la decision de 2003 de la Cour superieure de la Colombie-Britannique dans l'affaire Vancouver Rape Relief Society c. Nixon ainsi que l'arret de 2005 de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie-Britannique dans le meme dossier mettent en lumiere certaines des facons par lesquelles le droit et les forces de l'ordre agissent en vue de marginaliser la communaute transgenree. La theorie feministe du droit doit s'assurer de ne pas se rendre complice de cette marginalisation. A cette fin, les feministes doivent se demander ce que serait une theorie feministe qui puisse se penser avec, plutot que contre, la communaute transgenree. En se fondant sur certaines theories feministes etablies, le present article en isole certains aspects qui sont utiles pour analyser les questions transgenrees en droit tout en identifiant une ethique feministe de la responsabilite comme methode d'integrer ces elements dans une nouvelle approche. Cette derniere approche est ensuite appliquee dans l'analyse de differentes causes, y compris des causes en provenance du Canada, des Etats-Unis d'Amerique et du Royaume Uni, pour tenter d'identifier les faits nouveaux en droit qui ont un impact aussi bien sur la communaute transgenree que sur l'identite transgenree. The raid by police in September 2000 of the Pussy Palace, a women's bath house in Toronto, the 2003 decision of the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon, and the 2005 decision of the BC Court of Appeal in the same case highlight some of the ways in which the law and law enforcers act to marginalize the transgender community. Feminist legal theory must ensure that it is not complicit in this marginalization. In order to ensure this, feminists must ask themselves what a feminist theory would look like that could think with, rather than against, the transgender community. Drawing on some established feminist theories, this article isolates aspects that are useful for dealing with transgender issues in the law and identifies a feminist ethics of responsibility as a means of incorporating these elements into a new approach. This approach is then applied to an analysis of cases, including cases from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, in an attempt to identify positive and negative developments in the law that have an impact on the transgender community and transgender identity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".