“It’s not my business”: Exploring heteronormativity in young people’s discourses about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer issues and their implications for youth health and wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the issue of creating safe and inclusive school environments for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students has been in the spotlight. Several researchers and advocates have pointed out the positive effects of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer-positive policy frameworks on the health and wellbeing of all young people. In this article, we take a critical approach to analyzing narrative findings from qualitative interviews conducted with youth in three communities in British Columbia, Canada: "the North," Vancouver, and Abbotsford. Using a Foucauldian Discourse Analytic Approach and Butler's concept of Citationality, our analysis suggested that although explicit homophobia was largely absent from youth discussions, young people discursively constructed lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identities and "communities" in ways that reified heteronormativity. Youth made references to sociopolitical discourses of libertarianism and liberalism and to homonormative stereotypes regarding gay masculinity. A few young people also alluded to egalitarian, queer-positive discourses, which appeared to interrogate structures of heteronormativity. Since studies suggest a connection between the existence of institutional supports for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students in schools and their mental and physical wellbeing, we conclude by considering the limitations and possibilities of these sociopolitical discourses in the struggle for sexual and gender equity, and how they might help frame future health-related, anti-homophobia policy frameworks in educational settings.
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 | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".