Can We Be Proud Of Pride? A Discussion on Intersectionality in Current Canadian Pride Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the relationship between intersectionality and Pride, by critiquing and offering solutions for some of Pride's failings.A brief history of the gay civil rights movement helps to situate current Pride events, with a focus on the Nanaimo 2016 Pride parade as a site to explore the concept of intersectionality. Themes of racism, ableism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, as well as homonormativity—internal and external to the LGBT community—are discussed. Upon examination, a series of possible solutions to these trappings are offered, most prominently being an opening of dialogue within the LGBT community. This essay argues that, while Pride is a necessary source of LGBT representation, it often fails to observe the intersectionality within its community, resulting in racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and homonormativity. The ways in which Pride can harbour and nurture toxic mindsets of discrimination is a focal point in this essay,
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".