| Literature DB >> 33921402 |
Delfín Ortega-Sánchez1,2, Joan Pagès Blanch3, Jaime Ibáñez Quintana1, Esther Sanz de la Cal1, Raquel de la Fuente-Anuncibay4.
Abstract
The objective of this study is, on the one hand, to analyse emotional responses to the construction of hate speech relating to gender identity on Twitter. On the other hand, the objective is to evaluate the capabilities of trainee primary education teachers at constructing alternative counter-narratives to this socially alive issue, surrounding the approval of the Ley de Identidad de Género [Gender Identity Law] in Chile, in 2018. With this two-fold objective in mind, quantitative, descriptive, and inferential analysis and qualitative analysis techniques are all applied. The results inform us of the influence of socially constructed emotions and feelings that are expressed in social narratives. However, the narratives of the participants neither appeared to reach satisfactory levels of reflection on the social issues that stirred their own emotional responses, nor on the conflict between reason and the value judgements that they expressed in the digital debate (counter-narratives). These results point to the need to consider both emotions and feelings, as categories of social analysis, and to reflect on their forms of expression within the framework of education for inclusive democratic citizenship.Entities:
Keywords: gender identities; hate speech; social education; social narratives; trainee teachers; twitter
Year: 2021 PMID: 33921402 PMCID: PMC8070138 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Constructing the image of the enemy [16,17].
Figure 2Qualitative research process [49].
Selection of tweets.
| RdOrd | Tweets | |
|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | Today the gender identity law was passed, after over 5 years of lobbying by @IgualesChile and @OTDChile. It will mean a substantive improvement in the field of Human Rights in Chile that faces great challenges in the future, especially with respect to children. [Photo: National ID Card My Identity/My Right] | Thanks to those who supported and backed the Gender Identity Law! With the work that we have done together, Chile is a fairer and more egalitarian country. [Photo: Thanks to those who presented the motion on the Gender Identity Law; Also to those who supported it on its way.] |
| 3–4 | Historic day. Today the Gender Identity Law has been enacted. We dedicate this day to the victims of transphobia, to those who were murdered for holding an alternative gender identity and who died with an ID card that did not represent them. So that it may never happen again! #HappyWednesday | Jack can now be a lamp thanks to the Gender Identity Law. [Photo: BIOLOGICALLY I WAS BORN A DOG. But thanks to gender ideology, I do in fact exist! I CAN NOW BE A LAMP if you don’t agree you’re cursed with dog-phobia, living in the past… yours faithfully Progressive Logic]. |
| 5–6 | After years of work and struggle by the trans and LGTB organizations of Chile, Sebastián Piñera approved the new gender identity law, which depathologizes trans identities. | A good day for Chile! The Gender Identity Law was enacted, despite the hysteric opposition (and with no justification) of the religious ultra-right. Common sense and the common good have prevailed, and the guarantee of civil rights and the protection of the most vulnerable. |
| 7–8 | Gender identity law, you won’t touch our children with your twisted and fallacious concepts. [Photo: Speech bubbles Adult: “You mustn’t let anybody influence your decision”. Boy: “But I want to be a boy”. Adult: “Shut up you oppressive macho pig! Don’t…”] | Today is a great day, with the gender identity law an important problem has been solved that affects 0.01% of Chileans. Hopefully as from tomorrow the government will start to concern itself as much with the remaining 99.9% |
RdOrd.: Reading Order.
System of categories.
| Code | Indicators | Descriptor | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expert | JOA-Ex(n°-r) | ■ Justification of the chosen emotional response. | Justifies the emotional response with a reasoned argument, evaluates some weaknesses of hate speech and reflects on its causes and consequences. Includes other options and other perspectives and demonstrates a capacity for empathy. |
| RDO-Ex(n°-r) | ■ Reference to hate speech. | ||
| RCC-Ex(n°-r) | ■ Reflection on causes and consequences. | ||
| E-Ex(n°-r) | ■ Empathy | ||
| Intermediate | JOA-Int(n°-r) | ■ Justification of the chosen emotional option. | Justifies the emotional response with arguments that reflect the relevant feelings, but makes no explicit reference to hate narratives, with a view to reflecting on the causes and the consequences of the emotion that is aroused. |
| A-RDO-Int(n° -r) | ■ Absence of references to hate stories. | ||
| A-RCC-Int(n°-r) | ■ Absence of reflection on causes and consequences. | ||
| Beginner | DOA-Bg(n°-r) | ■ Description of the chosen emotional option. | In no way justifies the emotional response. Reproduces arguments that only describe the chosen option. |
C. Category; N°.-r.: number of records.
Figure 3Construct counter-narratives to hate [19].
Descriptive statistics by emotional variable.
| Emotion |
|
|---|---|
| Disgust/repugnance | 2 |
| Anger | 1 |
| Fear | 2 |
| Surprise | 1 |
| Happiness | 1 |
| Sadness | 2 |
| Apathy | 2 |
1 = Selection of the emotional option; 2 = Absence of any selection of the emotional option.
Contingency table for the two variables: emotion and sex.
| Emotional Variable | Men | Women | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disgust-repugnance |
| 7 | 0 | 7 |
|
| 58.3 | 0.0 | 15.2 | |
| Anger |
| 6 | 18 | 24 |
|
| 50.0 | 52.9 | 52.2 | |
| Fear |
| 2 | 8 | 10 |
|
| 16.7 | 23.5 | 21.7 | |
| Surprise |
| 10 | 14 | 24 |
|
| 83.3 | 41.2 | 52.2 | |
| Happiness |
| 8 | 26 | 34 |
|
| 66.7 | 76.5 | 73.9 | |
| Sadness |
| 6 | 10 | 16 |
|
| 50.0 | 29.4 | 34.8 | |
| Apathy |
| 4 | 0 | 4 |
|
| 33.3 | 0.0 | 8.7 | |
fi: absolute frequency; pi: relative percentage.
Relation and degree of association between the emotional variables and sex.
| Emotional Variable | χ2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disgust-repugnance | 19.090 ** | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 ** | 0.713 ** | 0.000 |
| Anger | 0.031 | 1 | 0.861 | 1 | 0.026 | 0.861 |
| Fear | 0.008 | 1 | 0.929 | 1 | 0.073 | 0.620 |
| Surprise | 6.317 * | 1 | 0.012 | 0.018 * | 0.371 * | 0.012 |
| Happiness | 0.080 | 1 | 0.777 | 0.703 | 0.098 | 0.506 |
| Sadness | 0.874 | 1 | 0.350 | 0.292 | 0.190 | 0.198 |
| Apathy | 8.569 ** | 1 | 0.003 | 0.003 ** | 0.519 ** | 0.000 |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; p-F: Fisher’s exact test.
Figure 4Positions of attributes (emotional variables) and tweets.
Table of correspondences of absolute frequencies.
| Attributes | Tweets | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tweet 1 | Tweet 2 | Tweet 3 | Tweet 4 | Tweet 5 | Tweet 6 | Tweet 7 | Tweet 8 | Active Margin | |
| Disgust-repugnance | 2 | 5 | 7 | ||||||
| Anger | 4 | 20 | 24 | ||||||
| Fear | 6 | 4 | 10 | ||||||
| Surprise | 6 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 21 | ||||
| Happiness | 11 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 30 | ||||
| Sadness | 8 | 8 | 16 | ||||||
| Apathy | 4 | 4 | |||||||
| Active margin | 17 | 12 | 10 | 14 | 8 | 4 | 39 | 8 | 112 |
Figure 5Positions of keywords and tweets.
Table of correspondences of absolute frequencies.
| Keywords | Tweet | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tweet 1 | Tweet 2 | Tweet 3 | Tweet 4 | Tweet 5 | Tweet 6 | Tweet 7 | Tweet 8 | Active Margin | |
| Progress | 19 | 19 | |||||||
| Freedom | 18 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 67 | ||||
| Intolerance | 22 | 16 | 38 | ||||||
| Equality | 30 | 14 | 17 | 61 | |||||
| Empathy (absence of) | 17 | 17 | |||||||
| Ignorance | 6 | 34 | 40 | ||||||
| Misinformation | 10 | 19 | 29 | ||||||
| Scorn (harm) | 14 | 14 | |||||||
| Violence | 17 | 17 | |||||||
| Active margin | 48 | 36 | 30 | 30 | 16 | 17 | 92 | 33 | 302 |