Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article illuminates the fugitive queer of colour history of the Indochinese Women’s Conferences in Canada in 1971, particularly the Southeast Asian delegates’ impromptu protest against white lesbian inquiries and the subsequent removal of lesbian workshops at the conference. Rather than assimilating this moment into a homonationalist historiography of perversely homophobic Asians, this article traces how the lesbian and gay liberation movements in the white Global North monopolized the political meanings of queerness and freedom in the 1970s. The Southeast Asian delegates’ decision to disengage from the topics forwarded by white lesbians suggests not their homophobia, but a contradiction within the meaning of queerness that emerges in the chaos of a race war. This article navigates through these logics, which critically make queer Asian women’s desires impossible. I employ the concept of refusal to discuss a specific site of queer Asian feminism, one that responds to the sexualized trauma of war and peace, as well as to the white Global North gay and lesbian activism that emerged in the same moment. Indeed, while refusal may imply replacing information with absence, the delegates’ refusal critically communicated the exploitative nature of white lesbian feminism and its unexpected affinities with heteropatriarchal Cold War militarism. Seriously considering the delegates’ insights into their multiple marginalizations within a transpacific economy, and the way they actively shaped how others should understand these experiences of violence, this article argues that this moment ushered in a prescient and innovative critique of queer Asian feminist formations in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".