Possibilities for Trans-Affirming Policy Potential: A Case Study of a Canadian Catholic School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mainstream media is increasingly reporting on the relationships between Catholic and trans identities in parochial schools, particularly with regard to gendered washroom use. With greater numbers of trans youth coming out at younger ages, significant educational policy changes are being considered around how Catholic schools can or should include trans youth. Method: This study applies trans and queer theologies to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in investigating the Wilson case, which was the first known instance of a Catholic school including some affirming policy provisions for trans youth. The authors additionally collected and coded 12 news articles from a variety of platforms to discern and discuss the theological arguments in the public square against more fulsome trans student inclusion in Catholic schools. Results: The authors found two related theological arguments against full inclusion, namely the notion that (1) Gender is God-given and therefore cannot be chosen or changed, and (2) That transgressive bodies are not sacred parts of the divine gender plan. Conclusion: Trans theology allowed the authors to disrupt both of the theological claims advanced by the Catholic educators quoted in the Wilson case. This created rich, imaginative space in which to reconsider the relationships between Catholic and trans identities, namely by not arranging them in a binary. Significance for policy-making in parochial schools is discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.062 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".