Quel genre de droit? Autopsie du sexisme dans la langue juridique (Autopsy of Sexism in Legal Language)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Diriez-vous d’un tribunal dont on limite la competence qu’on lui coupe les couilles? Diriez-vous d’une enfant violee qu’elle a vecu une « aventure sexuelle »? Diriez-vous de 30 avocates et d’un document qu’« ils » se trouvent dans la salle d’audience? Si vous avez repondu « non » a ces provocations, vous aimerez cet article. Si vous avez repondu « oui », vous en avez besoin. Nous traquons ici le sexisme dans la langue du droit. Effacer les femmes, pathologiser les meres, banaliser les violences: tels sont quelques-uns des effets discriminatoires de ce sexisme langagier que nous entreprenons de detailler sous toutes ses coutures. L’analyse du sexisme langagier doit devenir un champ d’etude en bonne et due forme. A cette fin, nous offrons une nomenclature des sexismes jurilinguistiques (lexical, grammatical, terminologique…), ainsi que deux nouvelles notions: la feminisation ostentatoire, un feminin marquee a l’oral, et le plafond de verre linguistique, cette obstination a nommer au masculin les femmes occupant de hautes fonctions. Notre etude offre des outils aux juges, avocat·es, notaires, legistes et autres practicien·nes du droit pour demasquer le sexisme cache dans leurs communications et se familiariser avec les nouveaux developpements en matiere de redaction inclusive. English Abstract: Would you say of a court whose jurisdiction was reduced that it was “emasculated”? Would you say of a child who was raped that she enjoyed a “sexual adventure”? Would you say of a high-ranking woman that “he” got the job? If you answered “no” to these provocations, you will enjoy this article. If you answered “yes”, you need to read it. Here we track sexism in the language of the law. Erasing women, pathologizing mothers, normalizing violence: these are but some of the discriminatory effects of the linguistic sexism that we undertake to detail in its every shape and form. The study of linguistic sexism must become a proper area of research. To this end, we offer a nomenclature of jurilinguistic sexisms (lexical, grammatical, terminological), as well as two new notions: ostentatious feminines and the linguistic glass ceiling. The former qualifies feminine forms that are significantly different from the masculine. The latter refers to some people’s stubborn designation of women in power in the masculine form in French. Our study offers tools for judges, lawyers, notaries, legists, and other legal practitioners to unmask the sexism hidden in their communications and familiarize themselves with new developments in inclusive writing.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".