Beyond Conventional "Womanhood": Feminist Legal Scholarship and Gender Identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminism is a diverse discipline with political, legal, philosophical, sociological, and economic roots. In recent years, some of the conversations within this vast realm of discourse have extended beyond the binary categories of “male” and “female” which marked first- and second-wave feminist discourse. In addition to controversies within Canadian case law and legislation, feminists have been concerned with the following debate: Is there room for various forms of gender expression and identity within feminist legal scholarship beyond conventional conceptions of womanhood? The enactment of Bill C-16 (enacted in June 2017) and the federal decision to amend the Canada Human Rights Act and Criminal Code so that these guiding legal principles will include gender identity and expression as a protected group has gained considerable media attention. Reactions have ranged from enthusiastic acceptance to intense disapproval. For instance, the viral denouncement from former University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson , who refused to use gender-neutral pronouns and claimed Bill C-16 would “criminalize pronoun misuse,” an unfounded but popularized argument against the Bill (Cossman, 2018, 43-45).
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".