The Politics of (Not) Giving a Sh*t: Understanding the Invisibilization of Queer South Asian Women in Pride Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis builds on the findings of my previous study, which established that queer South Asian women (QSAW) feel invisibilized in Toronto’s LGBTQ+ community (see Patel, 2019). The present study critically investigates the operation and cultural reproduction of power in organizational practices that invisibilize QSAW within Pride Toronto™, as a means of diagnosing the problem in mainstream LGBTQ+ organizations more broadly. The following research question is explored: How do the cultural underpinnings of Pride Toronto™ contribute to the invisibilization of queer South Asian women in the broader LGBTQ+ community? This critical ethnography substantiates the invisibilization of QSAW in the LGBTQ+ community as an institutionalized form of identity-based violence. This study rejects the argument that invisibility is exclusively felt by QSAW. Instead, this thesis demonstrates that QSAW are invisibilized by the willful negligence of dominant actors in knowledge practices, as well as assimilationist politics that mandate outness, which invalidate and exclude QSAW. This study further finds that QSAW remain invisibilized in the broader LGBTQ+ community as a result of Pride organizations branding as diverse and inclusive, while simultaneously advancing colonial knowledge about queer identities and ideologies that re-write the narratives of QSAW in mainstream LGBTQ+ discourse.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".