Description Is a Drag, and Vice Versa: Issues with Vocabulary Control

Abstract

How do controlled vocabularies address transgender topics?This talk explores the use of hierarchical taxonomic structures to describe people’s often-fluid gender identities and sexuality, particularly the lack of accurate and appropriate language in most commonly used subject thesauri, and how the lack of this accurate and appropriate language can affect potential users. More specifically, this refers to individuals who identify as gender nonconforming.This term, as defined by the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, refers to “people who do not follow other people's ideas or stereotypes about how they should look or act based on the female or male sex they were assigned at birth.” The phrase is frequently used as an umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of gender identities,including transsexual, drag queen, gender queer, and butch. Many standard vocabularies have a long and complicated history with regards to prescriptive access points for marginalized groups and sexualities. This talk offers a historical overview of the ways in which authorizedvocabularies have differed from vernacular language commonly used by community members and LGBTQ scholars to describe their own lives, and explores well- and lesser-known subject vocabularies such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, Medical Subject Headings, terminology used by community archives and libraries, and tags assigned by LGBTQ people when describing their personal collections. The proposal builds on research by Melissa Adler, Sanford Berman, Ellen Greenblatt, Matt Johnson, Patrick Keilty, and Hope Olson.

“Don't Say Gay” in Alabama: A taxonomic framework ofLGBTQ+ information support services in public libraries—An exploratory website content analysis of critical resistance

“…The tendency to resist discarding “neutrality” and “objectivity” historically continued to surface in all functional areas of public library interactions with LGBTQ+ communities, be it traditional or nontraditional domains of activities, including collection development, reference and technical services, user instruction, continuing education and sensitivity training, youth services, archives management, outreach and engagement, technology development, and others (Kitzie et al, 2022; Mehra, 2019; Stevens, 2018). Berman (1993), Drabinski (2013), Olson (2002), Roberto (2013), Howard and Knowlton (2018) and others called for efforts to remove bias from hegemonic classification structures, controlled vocabularies, and cataloging decisions by utilizing queer theory in its application to develop ethical and equitable standards. Greenblatt (2005) examined different electronic resources to assess effectiveness of access and delivery to library materials representing LGBTQ+ concerns, especially to patrons segregated geographically (i.e., rural areas) or socially (i.e., through stigma attached to sexual orientation and/or gender expression).…”