Contesting the production of safer leisure spaces for queer youth: Addressing oppositional sexism and experiencing psychic affirmation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript unpacks some of the ways psychic affirmation (e.g. pleasure in one’s gender), heteronormativity, and oppositional sexism operated in recreation spaces that were intentionally designed to be exclusionary (i.e. safer) based on gender and sexual identities. After a genderplay workshop (e.g. using make-up and costuming), fifteen cisgender, non-binary, and transgender queer youth were interviewed and asked to speak about their experiences of gender in the everyday and at the workshop. Using Critical Thematic Analysis, findings show the workshop was a contested site of safety where norms of binary gender were upheld through mentor expectations of youth performance based on gender presentation while also allowing youth to experience a version of self (psychic affirmation). At home, transgender youth expressing oppositional gendered behavior was interpreted by guardians as an indication of a regretful transition rather than psychic affirmation which then influenced youth to question their own gender sincerity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".