“Kids Not Rights, is Their Craving”: Sex Education, Gay Rights, and the Threat of Gay Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En juillet 1977, la Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne recommande l'ajout de l'orientation sexuelle dans le Code. Cette suggestion est généralement soutenue, mais les journaux et les évangélistes torontois veulent l'assurance que les conseils scolaires pourraient encore renvoyer les enseignants homosexuels. Ils exigent que les enfants soient protégés contre les enseignants gais, qu'ils accusent de prédation sexuelle. L'auteur établit des liens historiques entre cette situation et un regain de crainte envers les homosexuels qui s'amorce pendant les débats sur l'éducation sexuelle à Toronto, durant les années 1970. Plus tard, influencés par la croisade « Save the Children » d'Anita Bryant, les journaux et les évangélistes torontois soutiennent que les enseignants gais constituent l'effet dangereux des droits des gais. Après le meurtre d'Emanuel Jaques et la publication de l'article « Men Loving Boys Loving Men ‘ de Gerald Hannon en 1977, les sentiments antigais sont galvanisés à Toronto, freinant ainsi les progrès des droits des gais. In July 1977, the Ontario Humans Rights Commission recommended adding sexual orientation to the Code. This move was generally supported but Toronto newspapers and evangelists sought assurances that school boards could still dismiss homosexual teachers. They demanded children be shielded from gay teachers, who they accused of sexual predation. I historically link this to a reenergized fear of homosexuals which emerged during Toronto sex education debates in the 1970s. Later, influenced by Anita Bryant's Save the Children crusade, Toronto newspapers and evangelists argued gay teachers were the dangerous effect of gay rights. After the 1977 murder of Emanuel Jaques and the publication of Gerald Hannon's “Men Loving Boys, Loving Men” article, anti‐gay sentiment in Toronto exploded, temporarily halting the progress of gay rights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".