Research with Gender Diverse Populations: Why Sensitivity, Transparency, and Respect Matter

/

Gender diversity is an umbrella term used to describe the many ways to identify outside of the binary of men and women. It includes multiple labels (e.g., non-binary, agender, transgender) that people may use when their gender identity/expression do not align with others’ expectations or with societal norms and stereotypes (A Gender Agenda, 2021).

Gender diverse identities have been pathologized for most of the 20th century: prior to the 1970s, the majority of research on this community focused on sickness (Blair, 2016). In fact, the gender binary (i.e., man or woman) was considered “normal”,  so anything deviating from it signalled a defect and was even considered morally “bad”. Thus, not identifying with the sex one was assigned at birth was considered a sickness that needed to be treated (Drescher, 2015). These “treatments” involved invasive and harmful practices such as involuntary castration and electric shocks. These harmful practices were also conducted in research contexts, and although not considered so in the past, these are now seen as ethical research transgressions towards gender diverse individuals (Blair, 2016; Drescher, 2015).

Why is it important to mention past unethical research practices? Well, in order to currently achieve best practices in ethical and inclusive gender diverse research, it’s important that researchers “appreciate the systematic impact of historically unchecked transphobia within their discipline” (Vincent, 2018). The process of recognizing this problematic history can involve engaging with reports on the topic, and with responses from gender diverse organizations and informal sources (Vincent, 2018; some resources are linked at the bottom of the article under the “More readings” section).

Although developing sensitivity to the history of gender diversity research is a good start, it is possible that some gender diverse participants will be negatively impacted by a researcher’s presence or the design/wording of the study. In the end, members of the gender diverse community are the experts on how to effectively engage with them and their communities (Vincent, 2018). That being said, carefully studying language is essential, as researchers can come across as out of touch when using outdated or non-inclusive terms (Bauer et al., 2019; for more information, consult the “Promoting Trans* Literacies" document under the “More readings” section).

 In addition, the gender diverse community is largely heterogeneous. Therefore, effective engagement from researchers could look different for various individuals, depending on how they identify and what their lived experiences are (Chang & Chung, 2015). Indeed, some gender diverse individuals are impacted by multiple oppressions. For instance, experiences of gender diverse BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) individuals and individuals with disabilities will differ from those of white, able-bodied gender diverse individuals. Thus, it is important to open a dialogue with gender diverse community members facing multiple oppressions to conceive ways of conducting research that they are comfortable with and able to participate in (Vincent, 2018). Certainly, the wide range of gender identities intersect with race, class, sexual orientation, and more. Bauer and colleagues (2019) recommend that researchers reflect on the relevance of their studies to different groups within the gender diverse community, as well as how sub-groups that are multiply marginalized will be represented. It is therefore important to attend to interacting oppressions that may be at the source of inequities within the gender diverse communities (Bauer et al., 2019).  

Related to this is the importance for researchers to work directly with gender diverse people in a collaborative manner to ensure recognition of community members’ expertise and inclusion of their perspectives (Bauer et al., 2019). Analyzing stakeholders’ positions has further been linked to improved relationships between gender diverse community members and researchers (Nieder et al., 2018). Being in touch with stakeholders can also guide researchers towards wording and language that are as up-to-date as possible. As gender diverse communities continue to grow, “up-to-date” language is subject to change: checking-in with stakeholders is invaluable to understand what terms community members use to describe and understand themselves (University of British Columbia Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice, 2015).

Furthermore, researcher transparency matters when studies involve gender diverse populations and researchers should ask themselves the following questions: Why are we seeking gender diverse participants? In what ways, and to whom will this research be useful? Answering these questions can give a clear goal of what researchers are trying to achieve, how they are achieving it, and how at least part of the gender diverse population can benefit from it (Bauer et al., 2019; Vincent, 2018). Reflecting on these questions further pushes researchers to ask themselves if they are being driven by a desire to benefit their career, in which case they would likely be perceived as self-interested outsiders (Tuck & Chang, 2014). Moreover, if results from a study have the potential to reinforce stereotypes or stigma towards the gender diverse population when they are not presented in context, it is crucial to address what the results mean as well as what they do not mean (Bauer et al., 2019).

Researchers should also be aware and consider how research fatigue may affect over-researched minority populations (Ashley, 2020). This kind of fatigue is often reported by marginalized and small communities, as their participation in research is solicited over and over, by various researchers (Patel et al., 2020). For instance, Florence Ashley (2020) writes that as a member of the gender diverse community, the reason they may pass on participating in important studies is because of psychological and emotional exhaustion, also known as research fatigue. Ashley (2020) further states that researchers should disclose risk for research fatigue in conjunction with anticipated benefits to the community. Doing so can guide potential participants in deciding which studies to prioritize, and can minimize research fatigue through giving participants an idea of the study’s usefulness for themselves and their communities (Ashley, 2020).

Additionally, being respectful of spaces is invaluable when research involves gender diverse participants. Community spaces include physical and digital communities and these spaces can allow for individuals who belong to a particular group to come together, connect, share resources, and resist oppression. Although these spaces may appeal to researchers as potential recruitment sources, it is important, especially for cisgender researchers, to contact group moderators or administrators asking for permission to engage with the community before posting anything. This demonstrates respectful engagement and gives agency to the group moderator/administrator. Further, respecting the decision of any group moderator/administrator is crucial. It is important to remember that gender diverse community spaces can serve as spaces free from dominant cis-centric structures (Vincent, 2018). However, when requests are denied, some researchers try to persuade group moderators/administrators to grant them access to their space, in some cases pushing the message that being interested in gender diverse individuals’ experiences should be something to be grateful for. In addition to being disrespectful and unprofessional, this behavior may alienate gender diverse community spaces from interacting with researchers (Vincent, 2018). In fact, Chang & Chung (2015) reported that repeated microaggressions can lead members of the gender diverse community to deter from any form of engagement with academia.

As previously mentioned, because members of the gender diverse community remain experts on effective engagement with their communities, and given that effective engagement can look different across the heterogeneity of identities and lived experiences, it is not possible to guarantee that a researcher’s presence will not negatively impact any gender diverse participant (Vincent, 2018; Chang & Chung, 2015). Nonetheless, negative impact can be minimized when researchers gain familiarity with research history on gender diverse populations, study language carefully, attend to interacting oppressions, include stakeholders’ perspectives, consider the impact of research fatigue, are transparent in their intentions, and are respectful of spaces.

So, researchers: let’s get learning and let’s reflect on our social location (gender, sexual orientation, race, class, etc.) and the impact it can have on the research we conduct.

Yasmina Leveille, BAH, Queen’s University Psychology

More readings

 

References

A Gender Agenda. (2021). What is gender diversity? https://genderrights.org.au/information-hub/what-is-gender-diversity/

Ashley, F. (2020). Accounting for research fatigue in research ethics. Bioethics.

Bauer, G., Devor, A., Heinz, M., Marshall, Z., Pullen Sansfaçon, A., & Pyne, J. (2019). CPATH ethical guidelines for research involving transgender people & communities. Canadian Professional Association for Transgender Health.

Blair, K. L. (2016). Ethical research with sexual and gender minorities. The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies, 3, 375-380.

Chang, T. K., & Chung, Y. B. (2015). Transgender microaggressions: Complexity of the heterogeneity of transgender identities. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9(3), 217-234.

Drescher, J. (2015). Out of DSM: Depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral sciences, 5(4), 565-575.

Patel, S. S., Webster, R. K., Greenberg, N., Weston, D., & Brooks, S. K. (2020). Research fatigue in COVID-19 pandemic and post-disaster research: Causes, consequences and recommendations. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal.

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities, 223, 248.

University of British Columbia Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice (2015). Promoting Trans* Literacies.  https://grsj.arts.ubc.ca/files/2015/10/Promoting-Trans-Literacies-Supplementary-Resource.pdf

Vincent, B. W. (2018). Studying trans: Recommendations for ethical recruitment and collaboration with transgender participants in academic research. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(2), 102-116.

Safe-Sex and Safe-Dating among Single People During COVID-19: Is it Possible?

/

One of the many new terms you may have heard during the COVID-19 pandemic is ‘quarantine bae’. This refers to one’s romantic partner during the pandemic, motivated by the avoidance of facing the obstacles of being single. The emergence of this term reflects the hurdles faced by single people as a result of social distancing restrictions, stay-at-home orders, fear of contracting COVID-19 and even spreading the disease to household members. Therefore, it is not surprising that a study of 26 countries found that being single was associated with higher levels of perceived stress during lockdown (Kowal et al., 2020). This is coupled with mandates dictating that abstinence is the gold standard for single people during this time (Cabello et al., 2020). As we wait for widespread COVID-19 vaccine accessibility in Canada and the possibility of a third wave, it is worth considering the following question: based on our learnings in the past year, is there a reasonable and safe way for single people to be sexual and/or date during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Currently, evidence shows that there is a very low likelihood of contracting COVID-19 through semen or vaginal fluids (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2020). However, partnered sexual activity involves close contact, which presents a very significant risk for transmission. For example, kissing, which is a very common practice during partnered sexual activity, can involve the exchange of saliva that may contain the virus (Eleuteri & Terzitta, 2021). Also, for single people hoping to date, activities such as getting coffee, going for dinner, or going to the movies, may also involve close contact (e.g., less than 6 ft distance) or even be logistically impossible due to lockdown closures. Even meeting potential dating or sexual partners in-person in the first place may pose a significant risk of exposure and is also more difficult due to COVID-19 restrictions. Thus, if you are a single person looking for 0% risk of transmission, it is clear that close contact partnered sexual activity and dating is not the way to go.

When partnered sexual activity does occur, the possibility of safe sex among single people during the pandemic is further threatened given pandemic trends in contraception use and safe sex practices. For instance, loneliness has been associated with sexual risk-taking (Martin & Knox, 1997). Thus, the social isolation and high levels of stress and loneliness experienced by single people may actually lead to increased levels of risky sexual behaviours. A recent study in Australia found a general decline in condom use during the pandemic among 149 heterosexual participants, which was especially pronounced among single people (Dacosta et al., 2021). It was suggested that this was a result of the burden of receiving additional COVID-19 health guidelines on top of sexual health guidelines. Although rates of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) decreased substantially in Ontario since the pandemic’s onset (Public Health Ontario, 2020), this is likely due to a drop in STI screening and testing. In fact, this has already been shown to be a significant problem that disproportionately impacts the LGBTQIA+ community in Canada, with many delayed or missed asymptomatic STI diagnoses, a lack of STI screening, as well as lack of adherence to antiretroviral therapy for those who are HIV positive (Brennan et al., 2020). This also means that clinical eligibility for HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) may be currently limited in Canada (Brennan et al., 2020). This difficulty in maintaining safe-sex practices presents another issue with in-person partnered sexual activity during the pandemic.

So, does this mean that abstinence is the way to go? Not necessarily, as this may depend on one’s personal definition of “abstinence.” In light of the current difficulties with meeting potential partners in-person, there has been a rapid increase in online dating applications usage, such as Tinder since social distancing measures have been imposed (Chisom, 2021). But will those who meet online end up in close contact if they do meet? Although some may, it seems that many are relying on online contacts instead. One study found that some of the most common new additions to peoples’ sexual activity during the pandemic was cybersex and filming oneself masturbating (Lehmiller et al., 2020). Being younger and living alone were also significant factors linked to adding these new sexual activities in peoples’ sexual lives (Lehmiller et al., 2020). Sexting is another common activity, and it has shown to be a mutually positive sex activity when both partners are comfortable with this engagement (Hudson & Fetro, 2015). A similar approach can be taken for dating relationships, as it is also feasible to maintain online dating relationships through instant messaging, telephone calls, and video calling. In fact, technology-based communications may even demonstrate a “hyperpersonalization effect,” in which in intimacy is heightened compared to in-person interactions (Walther, 1994). Interestingly, at a time when single people feel very limited in their sexual and dating activities, this research provides evidence of increased sexual diversity, as less common sexual and dating activities have become more normalized. This shows that single people can and are adapting their sexual and dating lives in unique and creative ways in support of safety.

For those who are not satisfied with these technology-based solutions there is another option. It seems that masturbation is not a part of medical professionals’ definition of abstinence in safety guidelines. As a result, single people can shift their perspectives and view this time as an opportunity to learn new strategies for sexual pleasure on their own (Lopes et al., 2020). They can then bring what they have learned to future partnered sexual activities once Canadians are vaccinated. Masturbation, therefore, provides a method for single people to engage in sexual activity without taking on any risk.

Another important point, made clear by the extensive literature about the failures of abstinence-only education (Santelli et al., 2006), is that it is not reasonable to assume that all people will adopt abstinence from in-person dating activities and partnered in-person sexual activities (Banerjee & Rao, 2020). This is coupled with the reality that among younger adults in Ontario, those who are single have been suggested to be less compliant with COVID-19 public health measures (Evidence Synthesis Unit, 2020). Therefore, those who are not satisfied with safer options and decide they are willing to take on some risks should be informed how to do so in a way that minimizes risks as much as possible. For example, a person who wants to go on an in-person date should consider activities that maintain social distance, such as a socially distanced walk. For those who wish to engage in close-contact sexual activities, despite public health recommendations, should adhere to other public health recommendations such as self-monitoring symptoms, avoiding kissing and face-to-face contact, wearing a mask, and engaging in safer sex practices (e.g., condom use, STI screening) (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2020). In addition, at-home STI Testing programs for chlamydia and gonorrhea are important tools during the COVID-19 era (Carnevale et al., 2021).

While in-person partnered sexual activity is a high risk option, many alternatives to engage sexually exist for single people during the age of COVID-19. According to the World Health Organization, sexual health is defined as “…a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease…” (2017). Although the absence of disease – specifically COVID-19 – is ideal, it is extremely important that young single adults are given accurate options and information, as maintaining sexual health is important during this stressful and unprecedented time.

SexLab is currently recruiting for a study looking at Sexual Outcomes in people who have tested positive for COVID-19. Check it out HERE! 

Rina Gutzin, B.A.H. Psychology 2021, Queen’s University

 

 

References

Banerjee, D., & Rao, T. (2020). Sexuality, sexual well being, and intimacy during COVID-19 pandemic: An advocacy perspective. Indian journal of psychiatry, 62(4), 418–426. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_484_20

Brennan, D. J., Card, K. G., Collict, D., Jollimore, J., & Lachowsky, N. J. (2020). How Might Social Distancing Impact Gay, Bisexual, Queer, Trans and Two-Spirit Men in Canada? AIDS and Behavior, 24(9), 2480-2482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-02891-5

Cabello, F., Sánchez, F., Farré, J. M., & Montejo, A. L. (2020). Consensus on Recommendations for Safe Sexual Activity during the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. Journal of clinical medicine, 9(7), 2297. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072297

Carnevale, C., Richards, P., Cohall, R., Choe, J., Zitaner, J., Hall, N., . . . Zucker, J. (2020). At-Home Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 48(1), 11-14. doi:10.1097/olq.0000000000001313

Chisom, O. B. (2021). Effects of Modern Dating Applications on Healthy Offline Intimate Relationships during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of the Tinder Dating Application. Advances in Journalism and Communication, 9(1), 12-38. doi:10.4236/ajc.2021.91002

Eleuteri, S., & Terzitta, G. (2021). Sexuality during the COVID-19 pandemic: The importance of Internet. Sexologies, 30(1), 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2020.12.008

Evidence Synthesis Unit (Research, Analysis and Evaluation Branch, Ministry of Health). (2020, December, 10). Evidence Briefing Note: Youth Compliance With COVID-19 Public Health Measures. Evidence Synthesis Network: COVID-19 Collaboration in Practice. https://esnetwork.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Evidence-Synthesis-BN_Youth-Compliance-with-COVID-19-Public-Health-Measures_11-DEC-2020-1.pdf

Hudson, H.K., & Fetro, J.V. (2015). Sextual activity: Predictors of sexting behaviors and intentions to sext among selected undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 615–22. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.048.

Kowal, M., Coll-Martín, T., Ikizer, G., Rasmussen, J., Eichel, K., Studzinska, A., . . . Ahmed, O. (2020). Who Is the Most Stressed During COVID-19 Isolation? Data From 27 Countries. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 12(4), 946-966. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12234

Lehmiller, J. J., Garcia, J. R., Gesselman, A. N., & Mark, K. P. (2020). Less Sex, but More Sexual Diversity: Changes in Sexual Behavior during the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. Leisure Sciences, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2020.1774016

Lopes, G. P., Vale, F. B., Vieira, I., Filho, A. L., Abuhid, C., & Geber, S. (2020). COVID-19 and Sexuality: Reinventing Intimacy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(8), 2735-2738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01796-7

Martin, J. I., & Knox, J. (1997). Loneliness and Sexual Risk Behavior in Gay Men. Psychological Reports, 81(3), 815–825. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.81.3.815

Public Health Agency of Canada. (2020). Statement from the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada on September 2, 2020. Retrieved from the Government of Canada website: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2020/09/statement-from-the-chief-public-health-officer-of-canada-on-september-2-2020.html

Public Health Ontario. (2020). Monthly Infectious Diseases Surveillance Report: Diseases of Public Health Significance cases for January to December 2020. Retrieved from the Public Health Ontario website: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/surveillance-reports/infectious/surveillance-report-infectious-diseases-2020.pdf?la=en

Santelli, J., Ott, M. A., Lyon, M., Rogers, J., Summers, D., & Schleifer, R. (2006). Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(1), 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.10.006

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication research, 23(1), 3-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001