A trans pedagogy of <i>refusal</i> : interrogating cisgenderism, the limits of antinormativity and trans necropolitics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we reflect on the ethico-political and epistemological implications of a critical trans pedagogy that takes as its focus the generative stance of refusal. Our purpose is to identify and explain the significance of key axiomatic principles at the heart of our conception of such a pedagogical endeavour, which entails an interrogative stance vis-à-vis cisgenderism, antinormativity and trans necropolitics. These principles define a governing logics and rationality for enacting a trans pedagogy of refusal in its potential to create curricular spaces of recognition and intelligibility in educational institutions that are committed to addressing the erasure of trans and non-binary people. They also illuminate a necessary pedagogical commitment to centring desubjugated and submerged knowledges of transness and the blackness of transness that defy the limits of antinormativity and necropolitics.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".