Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexuality theories and the concept of sexual citizenship have evolved over time. Over the past two decades, queer theory has gained ascendancy and dominance in the realm of lgbtq debates. In our diverse world, rich with a complexity of varied perspectives, new contemporary theories and concepts are arising that challenge long established theoretical concepts and notions. This chapter undertakes a critical review of homonormativity, cisgenderism, neoliberalism and queer theory distinguishing and highlighting the world views of a decidedly progressive, critical segment of the broad lgbtq movement, being that of a politicized queer contingent. I outline the differences between lgbts and Queers and the respective social agendas of each group, providing a critical, progressive understanding of lgbtq populations and communities. Premised on activist motivations, and based on the experiences of the queer social justice group Queer Ontario, this chapter theorizes a new political perspective that is intellectually conceptual, yet practically applied in one segment of the broader lgbtq movement. This approach involves respecting the historical past by returning to the tenets and principles of gay liberation, re-contextualizing them to take into consideration the multiplicities that make up gender and sexual diversity, and resurrecting such world views into a modernized queer liberation theory. The focus on ‘theorizing anew’ in this conceptual chapter is particularly significant in an era in which the broad lgbtq movement is being increasingly assimilated, professionalized, mainstreamed and bent to the political agendas of neoliberalism. Progressive, critical, radical queer voices that are politically driven towards liberation, hold an important place in the movement, not only in ensuring a politicized world view from within, but also because they provide creative opportunities for restructuring sexual citizenship in society at large.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".