SOGI...So What? Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Human Rights Discourse at the United Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a critical appraisal of the “term of inclusion” by which issues related to sexual and gender diversity are being incorporated into international human rights discourse at the United Nations (UN): the category “sexual orientation and gender identity” or SOGI. The analysis maps the evolution of SOGI in the UN context and highlights three potential risks of a human rights discourse built on SOGI in the international context: 1) the marginalization of trans people, gender expression and intersex people in rights discourse; 2) the entrenchment of Western-based identity categories that lack applicability across contexts; and 3) the simple addition of SOGI to existing human rights discourses, resulting in fragmented and unpredictable norms related to sexual and gender diversity. The paper concludes that in the same moment that we celebrate the progress made by SOGI in advancing human rights related to sexual and gender diversity, we must continue to engage the potential risks and unintended consequences of relying on SOGI to ground international human rights discourse.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".