Sex Negativity and Anti-Queerness in Library of Congress Classification:

History, Structure, and Systems

Anastasia Chiu

they/them

Scholarly Communications Librarian

New York University

anastasia.chiu@nyu.edu

Tiffany Henry

she/her

Discovery Cataloger

University of North Carolina Greensboro

tnhenry@uncg.edu

Rhonda Kauffman

she/they

Metadata Management Librarian

University of Connecticut

rhonda.kauffman@uconn.edu

Who We Are

Queer + BIPOC + Catalogers

​

HQ: The Family. Marriage. Women

​

Main topics covered include (in order):

• Sexual life
• Erotica
• The family. Marriage. Home
• Thanatology. Death. Dying
• Sex role
• Men
• Women. Feminism
• Life skills. Coping skills. Everyday living skills
• Life style

https://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/classification/lcco/lcco_h.pdf

Definitions

Sex negativity

“A negative attitude or stance toward any sexual behavior �other than procreative marital coitus.”

Anti-queerness / Anti-LGBTQ Bias

“Prejudice and/or discrimination against people who are or who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer/questioning (LGBTQ).”

Methodology

Thematic historical review of LC Classification editions since HQ’s first appearance that we could access (1910, 1920, 1950, 1965, 1980, 2020)

Compared between editions:

• Captions
• Appearances, disappearances, changes to terms
• Arrangement/order of terms
• Explanatory notes

Comparisons of Editions: HQ 71-74.2

Comparisons of Editions: HQ 75-79

5 Mechanisms of Sex Negativity and Anti-Queerness in HQ

1. Granularity issues, including a dearth of numerical space given to broad topics, or conversely, disproportionate space devoted to niche topics
2. Explanatory note issues, including a lack of notes to clarify what should be classed in vaguely-labeled class ranges or number, or notes that perpetuate sex negative and anti-queer understandings of the topics classed there
3. Proximal association of topics that are understood to be harmful to correlate together
4. Labels that connote sex negativity or are broadly critiqued in queer communities
5. High stagnancy over time

Curiosa

The Family. Marriage. Women

�HQ12-18 Human sexuality. Sex� History. Sex customs�HQ18.3 Biology of sexologists�HQ18.5 Sexual Orientation

HQ18.55-552 Gender Identity�HQ18.6 Sexual attraction � Sexual Behavior and attitudes�HQ19-21 General�HQ23 General special (Special aspects of the subject as a whole)�HQ25 Curiosa�

​

HQ 25 Curiosa

• No explanatory notes
• Poor labeling
• “Curiosa” appeared in 1910 edition and has stayed
• What would you guess is classed under “curiosa”?
• “Unusual or erotic books” or euphemism for pornographic works
• Searched our catalogs, LC catalog, OCLC for titles classed here
• Not consistently one topic
• Includes many sex-positive titles

HQ 73-78 (Cornucopia of Queerness)

• HQ73 to HQ78 range for queer social life and various identities
• Example of granularity issue
• Issues with granularity implies lack of foresight and care for the subjects in HQ; manifestation of anti-queerness
• In comparison to other disciplines, decimals not utilized as effectively to accommodate subject area growth

​

Excerpt from HQ75

Excerpt adapted from Library of Congress Classification, HQ: The Family. Marriage. Women (Library of Congress Policy and Standards Division, 2020

HQ75.14-75.16.A-Z: Gay and lesbian studies

HQ75.25-75.26.A-Z: Travel

HQ75.27-75.28: Gay parents

Cf. HQ75.53: Lesbian mothers

HQ75.3-75.6.A-Z: Lesbians

Cf. HS3357.L47: Lesbian Girl Scouts

HQ75.7-76.2.A-Z: Gay men

HQ76.25: Homosexuality. Lesbianism. General works

​

Comparison Excerpt from QA76.73 (Computer Science)

QA76.73.A-Z: Individual languages, A-Z

QA76.73.A12: ABAP

QA76.73.A24: ALGOL

QA76.73.A35: Ada

QA76.73.A67: AppleScript

QA76.73.A8: Assembly languages. Assemblers

QA76.73.A84: AutoLISP

QA76.73.A95: AWK

QA76.73.B155: B

​

Excerpt adapted from Library of Congress Classification, QA: Mathematics (Library of Congress Policy and Standards Division, 2023

Sex Work in HQ

• Manifests all 5 mechanisms of sex negativity in HQ!
• Carol Leigh credited with creating the term “sex work” in the 1980s*
• Refers to exchange of sexual services or erotic performances for money or goods. No assumption of inherent harmfulness or inherent empowerment
• Recognizes that there are dynamics of oppression in the denial of rights and protections in the labor of consenting adults. Recognizes shared struggles of multiple different types of sex workers
• Sex negative attitudes toward sex work in HQ101-440.9 “Prostitution”

* Washington Post obituary for Carol Leigh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2022/11/18/carol-leigh-sex-work-dies/

Labeling in Sex Work Range

• “Prostitution” can carry connotations of immorality. Often used not only to label what someone does, but also to judge them and control their participation in mainstream society. Most classmark labels and explanatory notes in HQ101-440.9 connote this type of use
• “Prostitution” can also be used more plainly, to differentiate between a person who exchanges sex for pay, and other types of sex workers such as burlesque performers, webcam models, etc.
• “Sex work” is not a 1:1 substitution for “Prostitution” in HQ. Nothing to indicate that the section refers to all types of sex work. Nothing to indicate it doesn’t!

Explanatory Notes in Sex Work Range

• Explanatory notes for “Prostitution” HQ101-118: “Class here works on prostitution in general and on female prostitution. For works on male prostitution see HQ119+”
• Putting aside the gender issues, what counts as “prostitution?” All sex work?
• Explanatory note for “Prostitution – Human trafficking” HQ280-285: “Class here works on human trafficking for prostitution as well as human trafficking in general”
• Recognizes sex trafficking as the current dominant form of human trafficking, but portrays all other types of human trafficking as negligible

Granularity, Presence, and Absence in Sex Work Range

• No branches in this section that are dedicated to major movements like decriminalization or sex trafficking prevention
• Where there is granularity, it largely boils down to criminality or morality. Example:
• HQ101-440.9: Prostitution
• [...]
• HQ291-295: Social purity
• HQ291: General works
• HQ293: General special. Prophylaxis
• HQ295: The White Cross
• HQ301-440.9: Rescue work

Proximal Association in Sex Work Range

• The order and clustering of various topical issues in HQ101-440.9 also tell a particular story about what libraries think is salient about sex work and sex workers. Returning to the “social purity” example:
• HQ101-440.9: Prostitution
• [...]
• HQ280-285: Human trafficking
• HQ291-295: Social purity
• HQ301-440.9: Rescue work
• What story is this sequence telling you?

Stagnancy in Sex Work Range

• Continuing the example of trafficking, “social purity,” and “rescue,” there IS room between each of these to interrupt the harmful proximal associations
• HQ280-285: Human trafficking
• [HQ286-290: ROOM FOR SOMETHING NEW]
• HQ291-295: Social purity
• [HQ296-300: ROOM FOR SOMETHING NEW]
• HQ301-440.9: Rescue work
• Despite the room, no proposals have been approved for anything to sit between “Human trafficking,” “Social purity,” and “Rescue work” in more than 100 years.

Conclusion

• This is just a snapshot of HQ subclass, and of LC Classification more largely
• Many problems in HQ don’t necessarily have a clear solution, but deserve to be recognized as problems
• LCC proposal process would be too cumbersome to make even some of the simpler necessary changes
• Value in digging into issues larger than what the proposal process is optimized for
• Value in imagining what a more sex-positive and queer-friendly HQ could look like for users, and for catalogers alike

Thank you