Are You Serious? The Absurdity of Policies Defining Two Sexes … Banning One and Erasing Others!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Recent policies-executive actions, judgments, and legislation-that define sex as female and male are rooted in colonial and puritanical interpretations of sex. These policies reinforce cis-heteronormativity and reify hegemonic male dominance in society. Proponents of these policies claim they are based on the definition of biological sex, which would suggest sex is based solely on the presence of gametes, eggs, and sperm. This ignores the natural variations that occur through multiple aspects of sex development that converge to constitute an organism's sex and denies the social aspects of gender and sexuality in humans. Policies based on misinterpretation of biological variability are exclusionary and violate people's civil and human rights, rendering us all less human. We propose recommendations that use inclusive theoretical underpinnings from Black feminism and queer theory and a framework of legal determinants of justice to create policies grounded in human rights principles of dignity and respect.
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 | 0.027 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".