Trans and nonbinary students’ accounts of schooling: on epistemic witnessing, trans livability and the <i>failure</i> of the school <i>cistem</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we draw on accounts of trans and nonbinary youth we interviewed as part of a larger study on supporting gender diversity in schools. Our study is informed by an approach to epistemic witnessing which we conceive of as a praxis that is informed by a commitment to trans de-subjugation, testimonial justice and a transfeminist methodology with its critical focus on cissexist analytic pitfalls in research and refusal of objectification and overgeneralization of trans people. Our approach to analyzing interview data which refused the methodological constraints of forcing meaning into overdetermined and prescriptive thematic categories was also facilitative of this praxis. Overall, we provide testimonial accounts of trans youth navigating cisnormative school spaces and the tensions that arise around desires for trans (in)visibility which expose the cistemic forces at play in the education system in its failure to provide supportive conditions of trans livability and racial justice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| 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".