Queer(ed) Thought Experiments for Critiquing the Cissexism of Data Under Techno-Capitalism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v39i1.155987Keywords:
cissexism, queer data, techno-capitalism, thought experimentsAbstract
A rapid proliferation of near-universally accessible technologies has spurred an ubiquity of crisis discourses surrounding data and the digital. Everyone and their mother now have an opinion on algorithms and their importance. Simultaneously, the mainstreaming of anti-gender and paternalistic politicking the world over (re-)essentializing the cissexist order, is primarily platformed and propagated in digital environments. There is limited critical engagement with the very human vulnerabilities that are reproduced by the cissexism underpinning socio-technical infrastructures. This paper engages thought experiments as a queer methodology for developing accessible interrogations of our relationship(s) with data and the digital under techno-capitalism. We contend that these thought experiments queer logics underpinning dominant understandings of data and the digital in the academy, which so often fall into a dichotomy between the overly technical and the overly theoretical. By drawing on the polysemous potential that queerness holds, we argue that queer(ed) thought experiments challenge such dichotomies, enabling grappling with logic in a way that both requires sitting with discomfort and engaging in a critically reflexive reckoning with our self-positioning. Ultimately, we propose a method for queering our understanding of data, fundamentally transforming the ways we engage with it and those who seek to procure it.
References
Abbate, J. (2017). What and where is the Internet? (Re) defining Internet histories. Internet Histories, 1(1-2), 8-14.
Acosta, C. R. (2020). “A Picture Paints a Thousand Words”: Hand-drawn network maps as a means to elicit data on digitally mediated social relations. In Routledge International Handbook of Research Methods in Digital Humanities (pp. 62-75). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429777028
Adler, M., & Tennis, J. T. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of harm in knowledge organization systems. KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION, 40(4), 266-272.
Adler, M. (2016). The case for taxonomic reparations. KO Knowledge Organization, 43(8), 630-640.
Adler, M. (2017). Cruising the library: Perversities in the organization of knowledge. Fordham Univ Press: NY.
Barnes, J.A. & Harary, F. (1983). Graph theory in network analysis. Social Networks, 5(2), 235–244. DOI: 10.1016/0378-8733(83)90026-6
Basset, C. (2023). The cruel optimism of technological dreams. In J. Browne, S. Cave, E. Drage & K. McInerney (eds.), Feminist AI: Critical perspectives on algorithms, data, and intelligent machines. Oxford University Press. 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192889898.001.0001
Benjamin, R. (2016). Racial fictions, biological facts: Expanding the sociological imagination through speculative methods. Catalyst: Feminism, theory, technoscience, 2(2), 1-28.
Benjamin, R. (2023). Race after technology. In Social Theory Re-Wired (pp. 405-415). Routledge: New York.
Berlant, L. (2007). Cruel optimism: On Marx, loss and the senses. New Formations, (63), 33.
Berlant, L. (2011a). Cruel optimism, becoming event: A response. The Barnard Center for Research on Women and The Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies at NYU, 12.
Berlant, L. (2011b). Cruel optimism. In Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.
Berlant, L. (2016). The commons: Infrastructures for troubling times. Environment and Planning D: Society and space, 34(3), 393-419.
Bivens, R. (2017). The gender binary will not be deprogrammed: Ten years of coding gender on Facebook. New Media & Society, 19(6), 880-898.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000a). Invisible mediators of action: Classification and the ubiquity of standards. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1-2), 147-163
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000b). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press.
Carrigan, C. (2024). Cracking the Bro Code. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). Language and nature. Mind, 104(413), 1-61.
Cipolla, C., Gupta, K., Rubin, D. A., & Willey, A. (Eds.). (2017). Queer feminist science studies: A reader. University of Washington Press.
Dame-Griff, A. (2023). The two revolutions: A history of the transgender internet (Vol. 1). NYU Press.
D’Ignazio, C. (2015). What would feminist data visualization look like. MIT Center for Civic Media, 20.
D’Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2016, October). Feminist data visualization. In Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities (VIS4DH), Baltimore. IEEE (Vol. 2, No. 10).
D'ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2023). Data feminism. MIT press.
Ensmenger, N. (2012). The digital construction of technology: Rethinking the history of computers in society. Technology and Culture, 53(4), 753-776.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. Routledge.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2019). Gender/sex, sexual orientation, and identity are in the body: How did they get there?. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4-5), 529-555.
Fosch-Villaronga, E., Poulsen, A., Søraa, R. A., & Custers, B. H. M. (2021). A little bird told me your gender: Gender inferences in social media. Information Processing & Management, 58(3), 102541.
Gaboury, J. (2018). Becoming NULL: Queer relations in the excluded middle. Women & Performance: a journal of feminist theory, 28(2), 143-158.
Guyan, K. (2022a). Queer data.
Guyan, K. (2022b). Fixing the Wrong Problems: Queer Communities and the False Promise of Unbiased and Equal Data Systems. European Data Protection Law Review, 8(4), 455-461.
Guldi, J. (2023). The dangerous art of text mining: A methodology for digital history. Cambridge University Press.
Halberstam, J. (2011a). The queer art of failure. Duke University Press.
Halberstam, J. (2011b). Unbecoming: Queer negativity/radical passivity. In Sex, gender and time in fiction and culture (pp. 173-194). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Halberstam, J. (2013). Go gaga: Anarchy, chaos, and the wild. Social Text, 31(3), 123-134.
Halberstam, J. (2020a). Wild things: The disorder of desire. Duke University Press.
Halberstam, J. (2020b). Female masculinity. Duke University Press.
Halberstam, J. (2022). Unbuilding gender. Theories of performance critical and primary sources, 187-207.
Hall, S. (1980). Cultural studies: Two paradigms. Media, culture & society, 2(1), 57-72.
Harvey, D. (2008). The dialectics of spacetime. In Dialectics for the new century (pp. 98-117). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Hayles, N. K. (2012). How we think: Digital media and contemporary technogenesis. University of Chicago Press.
Hicks, M. (2019). Hacking the Cis-tem. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 41(1), 20-33.
Hicks, M. (2021). When did the fire start. Your computer is on fire, 11-28.
Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin.
Keilty, P., Cifor, M., Watson, B. M., & Weibe, A. (2024). Queer Data. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 780-781.
König, D. (1936). Theorie der endlichen und unendlichen Graphen. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The nature of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago, 197(0).
Lefebvre, H. (2009). Dialectical materialism. U of Minnesota Press.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Open University.
Monea, A. (2023). The digital closet: How the internet became straight. MIT Press.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. In Algorithms of oppression. New York university press.
Norton, J. D. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought?. Canadian journal of philosophy, 26(3), 333-366.
Olmos, P. (2017). On thought experiments and other narratives in scientific argument. Narration as argument, 193-213.
Paasonen, S., & Sundén, J. (2024). Objectionable nipples: Puritan data politics and sexual agency in social media. Queer data. Routledge.
Priest, G. (2017). Logic: A very short introduction (Vol. 29). Oxford University Press.
Ruberg, B. (2022). After agency: The queer posthumanism of video games that cannot be played. Convergence, 28(2), 413-430.
Russell, L. (2020). Glitch feminism: A manifesto. Verso Books.
Schlombs, C. (2022). Women, gender and computing: The social shaping of a technical field from Ada Lovelace’s algorithm to Anita Borg’s ‘Systers’. The Palgrave Handbook of Women and Science since 1660, 307-331.
Sarkar, S. (2017). Passionate producers: Corporate interventions in expanding the promise of the information society. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10(2), 241-260.
Shabbar, A. (2018). Queer-Alt-Delete: glitch art as protest against the surveillance cis-tem. WSQ: Women's Studies Quarterly, 46(3), 195-211.
Sundén, J. (2015). On trans-, glitch, and gender as machinery of failure. First Monday.
Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. MIT press
Wajcman, J. (2020). Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism. University of Chicago Press.
Webb, S. (2023). Defining full stack Feminism. University of Sussex
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lexi Webster, Kristen Schuster
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Publications in Women, Gender and Research are licensed under Creative Commons License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
