Justifying legal sexual identity rights for LGBTTQ students: a critique of liberal neutrality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent legal measures within Canada provide students the right to affirm the moral permissibility of lesbian, gay, bi, trans, two-spirited, and queer (hereafter LGBTTQ) identities within any state funded school. Such rights extend even to students in independent religious schools that parents may have chosen precisely because they teach that LGBTTQ desires and practices are immoral. Many, both within Canada and throughout the world, oppose such legal measures as wrongly promoting a controversial moral worldview at the expense of legitimate parental authority. In this study, I consider whether theories of political morality that endeavor to be neutral in justification can justify such measures against moral and religious dissent. I argue that, due to a lack of a genuinely neutral basis from which to build a morally binding theory of justice, the neutralist approach fails, given the resources on offer in the literature.
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 | 0.036 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.128 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".