MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521244895

The Law, Psychiatry and Pathologization of Sex Reassignment Surgery for Transgender Ontarians

2016· article· en· W2521244895 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew P. Ponsford

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderMental healthLegislationPolitical scienceGender dysphoriaHuman rightsSex reassignment surgery (male-to-female)Health careLawMedicineSociologyGender studiesPsychiatryTranssexual
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As of April 2016, gender identity and expression is a legally protected ground in human rights legislation passed in Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island; gender identity is statutorily protected in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories. This study examines the diagnostic categories of gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 and transsexualism in the ICD-10, and the continuing stigmatization associated with labeling gender identities and expressions as pathological. Ontario’s Human Rights Code and Health Insurance Act (HIA) are examined. Toronto’s Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) remains the sole option for transgender Ontarians seeking approval for sex reassignment surgery (SRS). The wait time is currently two years. In February 2015, Ontario’s Health Minister promised amendment of the HIA to enable other health professionals to approve surgery referrals, yet Ontarians continue experiencing access delays. This paper explores institutionalized discrimination in two interrelated contexts: (1) inadequate rights to legal documentation (e.g., provincial birth certificates and federal passports) for trans persons, and (2) insufficient access to SRS referrals and procedures. The paper examines the intersection among psychiatric assessment, the pathologization of trans persons, and the legal regulation of access to care. Statutorily prescribed rights of transgender Ontarians are highlighted through select jurisprudence, expert commentary, and one case study, helping to elucidate the complex issue of chronic underfunding of healthcare services for the trans community. The paper concludes government service providers and institutions fail to protect and serve transgender Ontarians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207