No abstract

Background: Trans and gender-diverse people with a cervix experience difficulties accessing cervical cancer screening because of structural, interpersonal, and individual barriers. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore issues with cervical cancer screening participation, awareness, and healthcare provider recommendation for trans and gender-diverse people. Methods: A national Australian survey was conducted in 2018 to 2019. Participants included 196 trans and gender-diverse people with a cervix. Data were analyzed using descriptive and multiple regression analyses. Two awareness items related to cervical cancer screening, healthcare provider recommendation, and cervical cancer screening participation were assessed. Four variables associated with cervical cancer screening were included in the regression: age, healthcare provider recommendation, like for body, and gender. Results: The sample was young; half (52.6%) were aged 20 to 24 years. Almost half (44.6%) had never had a healthcare provider recommend cervical cancer screening to them. Around half (48.0%) had never participated, with 21.9% reporting that they are regular screeners. More than a quarter (27.5%) of people who had screening had an abnormal result. The most common reasons for not participating in screening were that it is emotionally traumatic for them (55.3%) and inability to find a healthcare provider with whom they are comfortable (38.3%).Conclusions: Trans and gender-diverse Australians with a cervix are unlikely to be regular participants in cervical cancer screening. To continue reducing cervical cancer rates, healthcare providers must address underscreening in this community.Implications for Practice: Gender diversity training needs to be provided to healthcare providers. In addition, healthcare providers need to promote participation in cervical screening in this trans and gender-diverse community.

No abstract

No abstract

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) teachers are a marginalised group that historically have been absent from research on sexuality and schooling. Rather, much research in the field has focused upon the experiences of same sex attracted and increasingly, gender diverse young people in schools, as well as the delivery of sexuality education. Up until recently, very little research has been carried out that explicitly addresses the experiences of LGBTQ teachers, particularly within the Australian context. This article focuses upon key issues arising from the semi-structured interviews that the Out/In Front team carried out as part of a pilot study that took place between April and July 2013 in the state of Victoria, Australia. We interviewed nine current or former teachers working within primary and secondary education across the public, Catholic and private sectors. This paper focuses upon the notion that LGBTQ teachers exist within a ‘space of exclusion’ that is dominated by discursive mechanisms that (re)produce heteronormativity. We also argue that the Victorian policy context – as well as increasing socio-political tolerance for LGBTQ people within Australia – enables LGBT teachers to interrupt the discursive frameworks within which their professional lives are situated.

No abstract

No abstract

There is a need to better understand contemporary issues of nomenclature and group construction around people with intersex variations shaping health research and practices-including their framing within concepts like disorders of sex development (DSD), intersex, or the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) umbrella. This article reviews health literature in the broad field of Intersex Studies since 2015. It outlines the contexts, theoretical lenses, methods and participant numbers, framing of participants, and health findings around interventions evident in 61 sources. Sources came from the African region, American Canadian region, Asia-Pacific region, European region, and the Middle East. While healthrelated work was largely found in medical journals, it was also located in publications focused on a range of other fields including, for example, bioethics, education, and legal studies. The piece discusses the tensions between institutional expertcentered work with a traditional clinical/medical lens and the arguments found in a range of other patient-centered, community group-centered, and theory-centered sources applying innovative perspectives onto key issues. Liberal Constructivist, Bioethical Narrative Inquiry, Critical Intersex Studies, and Critical LGBTI Liberationist lenses have introduced a range of methods (from autobiographical analyses through to large-scale online surveys) to questions of the need for and processes of certain health care interventions and norms in the treatment of patients with intersex variations. Problematic practices in clinical health care and research are identified and discussed: particularly the lack of adequate information dissemination and consent-gleaning in areas ranging from anatomical photography through to application of "corrective" genital surgeries.