The Trouble with Inversion: an Examination of Science Sexual Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although some are excited about the possibility of using current scientific research into the biological causes of sexual orientation to ground rights claims, I argue that basing rights claims on this research is unwise because this research, specifically the hormonal, genetic, and structural research, is organized around the inversion assumption, a conceptual scheme within which some aspect of the biology of gay men and lesbians is thought to be inverted along sex lines.While there are many reasons to worry about the use of the inversion assumption, I focus on problems that arise from a further set of claims that must be assumed in order to make the use of the inversion assumption coherent. This further set of assumptions includes the claims (1) that heterosexuality is the standard state and that (2) this standard state is sexually-dimorphic and (3) deterministic. I argue that this set of assumptions is problematic because it results in ideological consequences that are both sexist and heterosexist. Plusieurs militants et militantes croient que la découverte d’un siège biologique de l’homosexualité permettra aux personnes homosexuelles de revendiquer leurs droits. Cependant, nous estimons qu’il est problématique de fonder ces revendications sur des recherches reposant sur certaines hypothèses qui sont implicites. En particulier, la notion d’inversion (inversion assumption) joue un rôle clef dans ces recherches. Ce qui veut dire que le schème conceptuel qui cadre cette recherche scientifique suppose que certains traits des hommes et des femmes homosexuelles sont inversés. Donc, les mâles homosexuels jouent le rôle de la femelle et les lesbiennes prennent celui du mâle dans la relation de couple. Pour que ce schème soit cohérent, plusieurs autres suppositions doivent être prises pour acquises et nous discutons trois d’entre-elles. En premier lieu, on suppose que l’hétérosexualité est la norme de base; deuxièmement que cette norme est dimorphe et finalement qu’elle est déterminée. Nous arguons que ces suppositions sont non seulement contestables mais qu’elles engendrent des idéologies à la fois sexistes et hétérosexistes.
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 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".