1 of 40

Intersectional and Intermodal�Making sexual health information accessible �to LGBTQ+ Deaf people

Martin Morris

McGill University

martin.morris@mcgill.ca

Daz Saunders

Université du Québec à Montréal

saunders.darren@uqam.ca

Alex Iantaffi

University of Wisconsin-Stout

alex@alexiantaffi.com

IFLA LGBTQ SIG: 21 August 2017

2 of 40

Outline

  1. Deaf and LGBTQ+ - Intersectional?
  2. Deaf 101
  3. The D-P@RK Study
  4. Deaf LGBTQ+ sexual health information
  5. Coalition SIDA des sourds du Québec
  6. Librarians
  7. Conclusion

2

3 of 40

Why is this subject relevant to intersectionality?

Intersectionality is the overlapping, or intersecting, of multiple social identities, along with their related systems of discrimination or domination.1

3

4 of 40

Sexuality

Race

Gender

Dis/Ability

5 of 40

Why is this subject relevant to intersectionality?

This subject is relevant to intersectionality, because Deaf LGBTQ+ people are members of two cultural minorities, both experiencing discrimination or domination.

    • LGBTQ+
    • Deaf

5

6 of 40

Deaf 101

The Deaf community as a cultural minority

7 of 40

Deaf culture: The medical model

The medical model

  • sees Deafness as something inferior, needing to be corrected, or even cured
  • encourages view of Deaf people as inferior, ‘missing’ something, not a full human being.

7

8 of 40

Deaf culture: The medical model

  • Encourages many to perceive Deaf people as disabled, despite Deaf people seeing themselves as a cultural minority.
  • Deaf people are thus often trained in school to function as hearing people.

8

9 of 40

Deaf culture: The socio-cultural model

The socio-cultural model

  • sees Deafness as a social construct with which one can build an identity
  • Deaf people have their own distinct culture and language which is visual-spatial = sign language2
  • Note: Sign languages are not mime!
  • Also : there is NOT one universal sign language (there are roughly 300!).

9

10 of 40

11 of 40

Deaf culture: The socio-cultural model

  • Deaf community is linked by this culture and sign language, which Deaf people can share.
  • This culture and language usually

transmitted horizontally, not vertically, since �90-95% Deaf people are born in hearing families.3

11

12 of 40

Audism

Deaf people

  • often have poor spoken/written literacy because of inaccessible education.
  • experience discrimination within hearing society – this is audism.4
  • Audism views sign languages as inferior to spoken languages, written/spoken communication as superior to visual.

12

13 of 40

Audism

  • Audism discourages visual communication and deprives Deaf people of clear access to information.
  • Information infrequently translated into visual/sign language format
  • This particularly includes sexual health information.

13

14 of 40

Deaf culture

  • Deaf people tend to have much more trust for visual information produced by other members of their own Community.
  • Can lead to higher risk of disinformation if information isn’t produced by experts.

14

15 of 40

Intersectionality : LGBTQ+ and Deaf

Three systematic barriers to providing information to Deaf people

Language5

Communication6

Audism7

15

16 of 40

Language

Which language is being used?

The language of society �or the Sign Language of �Deaf people?

16

17 of 40

Communication

Does the information format recognise the Deaf preference for direct and uncomplicated communication?

Is the information-provider resistant to the related taboos for visual sexual health information?

17

18 of 40

Audism

The hearing person’s perception of the Deaf person and their prejudices can inhibit lines of communication.

18

19 of 40

The D-P@RK Study

Do these systemic barriers matter in practice?

20 of 40

The context

  • Prevalence of HIV in Deaf and HoH people in the US is 2 to 5 times higher than for hearing people9
  • Poor sexual health knowledge amongst Deaf people around the world, including Deaf adolescents.9
  • Deaf people experience high prevalence of �co-factors for HIV and STIs risk, including stigma, polysubstance use and a history of male childhood sexual abuse.
  • Sexual health services for Deaf people very limited and non-existent in many/most geographical areas.

20

21 of 40

The D-P@RK Study

Looking at responses to sexual health information, and specifically HIV testing, among Deaf MSM.8

21

22 of 40

The D-P@RK Study: Selected results

  • Lack of cultural competence
  • Infantilization and desexualization of �Deaf people
  • Inaccessibility of spoken information for Deaf people
  • Challenges with trusting confidentiality of interpreting services
  • Acceptability of HIV counselors dependent on their identities and attitudes (trust issues)

22

23 of 40

Core finding

Need for information, education and visibility of HIV resources online, in ASL, to increase knowledge and build trust

23

24 of 40

Deaf LGBTQ+ sexual �health information

Where do librarians and �information professionals fit in?

25 of 40

Sexual health information to LGBTQ+ people

Taboos

  • Describing sexual acts, using obtuse/unclear language, reliance on puns/word play.
  • Heteronormativity

Subject is already taboo, difficult. The need to be visual and very direct with Deaf people increases this while reducing information effectiveness.

25

26 of 40

Targetting information for Deaf people

Information aimed at Deaf people must be either…

  • VISUAL, and/or
  • directly worded

It’s also very important that the information producer have demonstrated respect (without audism) for the Deaf people with whom they are communicating.

26

27 of 40

Case study

Coalition SIDA des sourds du Québec

28 of 40

Coalition Sida des Sourds du Québec

  • Deaf-led organisation producing preventive sexual health information for Deaf people.
  • All materials are produced by Deaf people for Deaf people in four languages:
    • Quebec Sign Language (Langue des signes québécoise: LSQ)
    • American Sign Language (ASL)
    • English
    • French

28

29 of 40

Coalition SIDA des sourds du Québec

  • Information is visual, direct and clear

Screenshot of an ASL video capsule on the risks associated with anal penetration (http://www.cssq.org/english/intercourse-penile-anal.html)

29

30 of 40

Coalition Sida des Sourds du Québec

CSSQ (2013) “Safe sex for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community”, �pp. 12-13

30

31 of 40

Coalition Sida des Sourds du Québec

CSSQ (2013) “Safe sex for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community”, �pp. 20-21

31

32 of 40

Coalition Sida des Sourds du Québec

CSSQ (2015), “Guide: Sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections”, �pp. 34-35

32

33 of 40

Librarian attitudes

What do we know?

34 of 40

Librarians: What we know

  • Generally progressive attitudes
  • Generally comfortable handing information requests relating to sex and sexuality10
  • However, recent study11 shows underlying taboos and prejudices which affect librarians.

34

35 of 40

Librarians: What we know

  • Reaction to certain shock factors (e.g. elder gay men asking about safe sex)
  • Overt vs covert (e.g. book displays vs reference)
  • Fear of lack of knowledge, and the effect this might have on vulnerable patrons
    • Fear of �lack of knowledge

​

    • Overt vs covert

​

    • "Shock" Factors

​

35

36 of 40

Conclusion

Putting it all together

37 of 40

What can librarians do?

  • Be aware of taboos and personal prejudices (we all have them!) and move beyond them
  • Work with Deaf (LGBTQ+) people
  • A little sign language goes a long way in building trust and mutual respect
  • Things will cost more, including videos, and will take more time!
  • But before all that…

37

38 of 40

Reflective practice

The next step:

  • Health librarians need to engage with critical reflective practice12
  • Structured reflection can help navigate areas of work which are unfamiliar to us

38

39 of 40

References

  1. Collins, C. H. (2015). Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology. 41, 1–20.
  2. Ringo A. (2013). Understanding Deafness: Not everyone wants to be 'fixed' [Internet]. Washington DC: The Atlantic; [cited 2017 Feb 10]. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/understanding-deafness-not-everyone-wants-to-be-fixed/278527/.
  3. Ladd, P. Understanding Deaf culture: In search of Deafhood. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters; 2003. 502 pp.
  4. Bauman, H.-D. L. Audism: Exploring the metaphysics of oppression. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2004;9(2):239-46.
  5. Sadler, G. R, Huang, J. T., Padden, C. A., Elion, L., Galey, T. A., Gunsauls, D. C., et al. Bringing health care information to the Deaf community. Journal of Cancer Education. 2001;16(2):105-8.
  6. Bat-Chava Y., Martin D., & Kosciw J. G. Barriers to HIV/AIDS knowledge and prevention among deaf and hard of hearing people. AIDS Care. 2005;17(5):623-34.
  7. Ferndale D., Watson B., & Munro L. An exploration of how health care professionals understand experiences of deafness. Critical Public Health. 2016:1-13.
  8. Iantaffi A., Benoit, C., Rosser, S. B. R., & Rose, S. D-P@RK Study: Overcoming health disparities to HIV testing for Deaf MSM through the internet. University of Minnesota; 2016. (Unpublished report).
  9. InterGroup Services, Inc. (IGS) for Associated Black Charities. 2003. An Assessment of the Needs of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons with HIV in the Baltimore Area. Baltimore, MD: IGS; 2003. Available from:http://www.baltimorepc.org/v2/files/pdf/DeafReport.pdf
  10. Siegel J. Let’s talk about sex: The librarians’ response. Journal of Hospital Librarianship. 2007;7(2):1–15.
  11. Morris, M., & Siegel, J. (2017, May). Academic librarians working with their LGBTQ patrons: An exploratory survey . Poster session presented at the meeting of ACRL New England, Burlington, VT.
  12. Hawkins, B., Morris, M., Nguyen, T., Siegel, J., & Vardell, E. (in press). Advancing the conversation: Next steps in LGBTQ health librarianship. Journal of the Medical Library Association.

39

40 of 40

Any questions?