Search Results for « LGBTQ »

Abstract Books serve as important information resources and provide space for reflection and identity-building for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) people. Many in this community have experienced reduced feelings of isolation through engagement with the writings of others. Providing a safe space for such engagement is vital. Library and information science (LIS) professionals are in an optimal position to meet such needs, particularly when efforts are made to implement changes based on explicitly expressed concerns. This chapter provides a case study of the LGBTQ Center of Durham, North Carolina, to illustrate how the organization is integrating the local LGBTQ+ community into its library by using the community’s own vocabulary and interests to inform the center’s practices and policies. The chapter also offers a guide to the locally responsive, LGBTQ+-specific classification system created for the LGBTQ Center of Durham’s library collection. This classification system was designed to represent library materials for its Durham and surrounding-area users in a useful, accessible, and respectful manner – a feat that the library committee did not feel could be accomplished using existing classification systems. Building on the case study for applicability, the author makes recommendations for how LIS professionals who wish to better serve LGBTQ+ users can incorporate the community into their library and/or collection. The author provides additional suggestions for action, with varying levels of commitment, for library professionals and volunteers. Through resource development, training, collection development, and classification revision, libraries can more closely align their practices with the needs of users of all gender identities and sexual orientations.

Abstract The 2020 reauthorization of the Older Americans Act (OAA) coupled with a federal rulemaking process effective in March 2024 together represent a historic shift in federal aging policy that acknowledges the importance of cultivating an aging services delivery system inclusive of LGBTQ+ older adults. Yet, to date there is no publicly available analysis of the extent to which states include LGBTQ+ older adults in the planning processes that determine how aging services funded under the OAA are implemented locally. Through a critical discourse analysis lens, we conducted a document review of current state plans on aging for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (N = 51) to assess the extent to which LGBTQ+ older adults are included in the language of state plans on aging and the context of that language in relation to key domains including: definitions of “greatest social need,” community engagement, data collection, and training/professional development. Findings indicate that while plans for 36 states contain LGBTQ+ inclusive terms, the context of that language and the extent to which it directly legitimizes LGBTQ+ older adults in key domains varies geographically. In addition to sharing findings with the research community, dissemination activities include creation of a publicly accessible LGBTQ State Plan on Aging Report Card (LGBTQ-SPARC) depicting level of LGBTQ+ inclusion by state, providing a snapshot of how states currently conform to best practices for LGBTQ+ inclusion in planning and serving as a baseline against which to measure LGBTQ+ inclusion in state planning processes for the future.

Abstract Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ) individuals face significant stigma globally. Examples of stigma range from extreme acts of violence, such as murder, to more subtle yet pervasive forms of marginalization and social exclusion, such as being socially rejected, denied employment opportunities, and given poor healthcare. Stigma has been identified as a fundamental cause of global LGBTQ health inequities. This chapter summarizes research on and theory that defines LGBTQ stigma, documents ways in which stigma is manifested and experienced by LGBTQ individuals, articulates how stigma leads to health inequities among LGBTQ populations, and identifies evidence-based intervention strategies to address LGBTQ stigma. Moreover, recommendations for addressing stigma to promote LGBTQ health equity globally are provided. As examples, promoting policy change and investing in social norm campaigns can reduce stigma at the structural level, enhancing education and providing opportunities for interpersonal contact can reduce stigma among individuals who perpetrate stigma, and bolstering resilience can protect LGBTQ individuals from stigma. Intervention strategies that have been developed in the Global South are being applied in the Global North (e.g., participatory theatre) and vice versa. As the field moves toward addressing stigma to achieve LGBTQ health equity, it is worth bearing in mind that stigma is neither fixed nor insurmountable. Rather, it is malleable and intervenable: it has changed and will continue to change with time. Public health researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders have key roles to play in advocating for continued change in LGBTQ stigma worldwide.