Neoliberalism, Control of Trans and Gender Diverse Bodies and Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper explores how neoliberal ideologies inform both social and political agendas that influence how social workers can provide support to trans and gender diverse people attempting to access gender-affirming healthcare, using an analysis of social workers' experiences working in mental health in Nova Scotia, Canada. METHOD: Qualitative semi-structured interviews provide a perspective of the experiences of social workers in Nova Scotia and how their ability to provide mental health services to trans and gender diverse people is impacted by neoliberalism. RESULTS: Most social workers attributed the structural context of working within a bio-medical system as contributing to social workers being disempowered, undermined, and not able to practice according to the values of their profession thus limiting their ability to provide affirming mental health supports to trans and gender diverse people in ways that align with their social work professional ethics and values. DISCUSSION: Through examining how neoliberal ideologies create notions of ideal social citizens by controlling the body, the paper explores how lived experience of neoliberal practices in mental health social work reinforce transnormativity. This paper highlights the necessity for social workers to resist dominant neoliberal and medicalized discourses which serve as mechanisms of power and control. CONCLUSION: The paper concludes with recommendations for social work practice with trans and gender diverse populations.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".