Revisiting the Claims of Past Medical Innocence and Good Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical professionals usually reject critiques of deferrable treatments that alter the sex characteristics of infants and children without personal informed consent on the grounds that intersex adults’ experiences reflect ‘obsolete’ practice. However, past practice is also protected from criticism by claiming ‘good intentions’, a commitment to the child’s best interest and context-dictated constraints on medical practice. I first examine foundational literature of the Optimal Gender Policy to verify the presence of statements of interests or motives, I then collect affect displays to identify motives, and I observe attitudes to clitoridectomy. Affect displays point to motives that are relevant in interpretive sociology, as they allow access to cultural or institutional dispositions when justification talk has not been provided. While a statement of interest is absent from the foundational literature, I identify the following affect displays: (1) unease and disgust; (2) attachment to heteronormativity, as well as three kinds of gratification or pleasure rewards; (3) power pleasure; (4) surgical pleasure; (5) and cosmetic pleasure. As surgical action appeases some of these affects and nourish others, previous medical professionals had interests that were their own and not centred on the children. Examination of attitudes to clitoridectomy reveals that clinicians were aware of the (phallo)clitoris’ importance to sexual pleasure but dismissed it, further invalidating claims that past practice was based on children’s best interest.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".