MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929069509 · doi:10.48336/k09b-1b48

The ethics of (intersex) avoidance

2025· article· en· W6929069509 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Openness to experienceDevaluationSperm donationEthical issuesEthical theoryBodily integrityNeutralityDichotomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis critically examines the ethical implications of using Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) to avoid the birth of intersex children, challenging the arguments presented by Robert Sparrow in "Gender Eugenics? The Ethics of PGD for Intersex Conditions" (2013). Sparrow defends the use of PGD for intersex avoidance to promote the future child's well-being. Still, this work contends that such practices are ethically indefensible and perpetuate harmful societal narratives. First, it employs the Expressivist Critique to illustrate how reproductive decisions in the context of intersex avoidance perpetuate the devaluation of intersex lives, challenging the notion of ethical neutrality in such practices. Second, exploring intersex avoidance through the lens of Donna Haraway's Cyborg Feminism, the thesis highlights the cultural and psychological implications of rejecting intersex identities and reinforcing binary gender norms. Third, it examines parental ethics, advocating for an approach to parenting that embraces openness while emphasizing the ethical dimensions of reproductive decisions. The thesis ultimately calls for a more inclusive understanding of intersex variations, urging a re-evaluation of societal and ethical frameworks to foster a diverse and accepting community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Same topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207