ANALOGICAL REASONING AND THE REGULATION OF RACE AND SAME-SEX\nSEXUALITIES IN CANADA, 1969–2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this dissertation, I conceptualize the Canadian state’s regulation of sexuality as a racial project. To do so, I trace the historical development of analogical reasoning as a mode of racial and sexual governance in Canada between 1969 and 2005. I take a case study approach and use critical discourse analysis to examine House of Commons transcripts and Supreme Court of Canada decisions from three moments that are frequently cited as turning points in Canadian LGBTQ2S history: Parliament’s 1969 decision to decriminalize anal sex that occurred in private between two consenting adults over 21 years of age; the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in Egan v. Canada in which the Court decided sexual orientation was analogous to the grounds of discrimination enumerated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one of which is race; and Parliament’s 2005 decision to legalize same-sex marriage. I analyze how prime ministers, members of parliament, and Supreme Court judges developed and mobilized the analogical logic that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is like racism. I argue that this use of analogical reasoning serves the Canadian state’s interests in two ways. First, because state actors analogized contemporary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to examples of racism that were either based in the United States or in Canada’s past, the analogies invisibilized the ongoing realities of racism and white settler colonialism in Canada, securing Canada’s self-construction as “post-race” and delegitimizing critiques of Canadian racism. Second, I suggest that the construction of race and sexual orientation as analogical rather than intersecting phenomena has been part of an effort to diffuse more radical demands for justice by people working against multiple and intersecting forms of racial and sexual repression. Ultimately, I argue that the reforms I describe in this dissertation, which were supposedly aimed at enhancing the inclusion of LGBTQ2S people in Canadian society, strengthened, rather than undermined, heteronormativity, racism, and white settler hegemony in Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".