Gendering Legal Parenthood: Bio-Genetic Ties, Intentionality and Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent legal developments in Canada have produced contradictory trends in relation to defining parenthood and determining parental rights and responsibilities. In some cases, the intention to parent appears to be given considerable weight. In others, bio-genetic ties prevail, or influence the extent to which intentionality will be recognized. This article suggests a feminist approach to the determination of legal parenthood, drawing on literature about the gendered nature of parenting law, fathers' rights, and the fragmentation of parenthood. It explores the apparently contradictory legal trends by examining the extent to which bio-genetic ties and intentionality inform the fragmentation of parenthood, and argues that gender still plays an important role in mediating both intentionality and bio-genetic ties. Strategic possibilities in relation to law reform are suggested, drawing on empirical studies about non-traditional families, especially lesbian-headed families. These studies point to a complex approach to bio-genetic ties and intentionality that the law may need to address in order to better protect the best interests of children and to enhance the autonomy of women who wish to define the conditions under which they parent a child.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".