Content uploaded by Katherine Wyers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katherine Wyers on May 04, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Leaving No-one Behind? A Research Agenda for Queer Issues in ICT4D
Katherine Wyers
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
katherwy@ifi.uio.no
ORCID: 0000-0001-6313-7811
Abstract: The ICT4D community, and the IFIP Working Group 9.4, is bound by a shared interest in social emancipation through
digital technologies. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are often evoked to highlight the many social, economic, and
environmental arenas where we are active. However, a perspective centring on queer issues is notably absent from our various
mission statements. In this paper, I present a research agenda for queer issues in ICT4D to address this absence. I examine the
literature that presents such a perspective in information systems and ICT4D, exploring the challenges that the invisibility of queer
issues leads to. For LGBTQ+ people, this absence causes barriers and hesitancy in engaging with public services, and worse, the
perpetuation and amplification of systematic discrimination. As researchers, developers, and practitioners, we can and should adopt
a more inclusive approach, building on past experiences with ICT to address the plights of marginalized groups.
Keywords: LGBTQ+, Transgender, Queer, Information Systems, ICT4D, Queering Scholarship
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
In this paper, I propose a research agenda to introduce a queer, trans-feminist, intersectional perspective in ICT4D
research and practice. I aim to highlight the gaps in literature, discuss the issues that these gaps are having on a
vulnerable population, and present a research agenda that the ICT4D community can use to approach these topics. I
introduce some of the issues that emerge as information systems and ICT4D interventions continue to impact on the
lives of LGBTQ+ populations, leading to challenges in accessing vital services, healthcare, housing, social protection
and employment. I describe research streams conducted in related fields of technology, data-systems and data justice,
and use these to highlight possible avenues to begin exploring this topic in ICT4D research. Finally, based on this I
present a research agenda for queer information systems research within ICT4D.
1.1.1. What We Talk About When We Talk About LGBTQ+ People. There are certain challenges that arise when
attempting to define communities that do not conform to socially-constructed norms of sexual orientation and/or
gender identity and expression. There is no unequivocally agreed-upon term to describe such communities in a way
that is sufficiently inclusive whilst recognising and respecting that western terms such as LGBTQ+ may not be
universally accepted. The Fa’afafine people of Samoa do not have the same experiences as the Hijra populations in
India, or the Two-spirit people of native America, or people across the Global North and beyond who identify as
transgender men or transgender women. The communities of self-identified non-homosexual men who have sex with
men (MSM) have different experiences than gay men. Likewise, intersex people have distinct experiences, separate
from the experience of other LGBTQ+ communities. While many people within these communities do not identify
with LGBTQ+, there are shared experiences across all these communities that are connected to cisnormativity and
heteronormativity. Judith Butler shows us that language influences society, literature and philosophy since “its
dimensions of dynamism enable humans to establish themselves as gendered subjects” [1]. Therefore, in presenting
this paper, I spent significant time considering the use of language, and how to refer to a broad, diverse, globally-
distributed population. To this effect, I have chosen the term “sexual orientation, gender identity and expression”
(SOGIE) as a broad term to refer to the source of the violence and discrimination experienced by these communities,
and “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, other” (LGBTQ+) as the broad term to refer to members of these
communities. LGBTQ+ here includes populations such as the Hijra in India, men who have sex with men (MSM),
Fa’afafine in Samoa, Two-spirit people in native American culture, and all other groups who do not identify with
identities that in western countries are referred to as cisgender and/or heterosexual. While there are drawbacks to using
such a term, not least that LGBTQ+ is a term originating from the global North and many communities do not identify
as LGBTQ+, I have chosen this acronym because it is widely recognised in the research community and is broadly
inclusive with the intent to highlight the issues that affect many of the people in these diverse, globally-distributed
communities.
1.1.2. Terminology. In this paper, there are several terms that are commonly used within the LGBTQ+ community.
For readers unfamiliar with these terms, Table 1 describes how I use these terms. While the issues raised are often
broadly applicable to all members of the LGBTQ+ communities, at times throughout this paper, specific communities
are highlighted to illuminate individual cases where issues are felt most acutely.
Cisgender
A person who is not transgender. A person who identifies with the gender assigned to them at
birth
Cisnormative
The assumption that all human beings are cisgender
Intersectional
(research
perspective)
A research perspective that takes into account how people’s social identities can overlap,
creating different modes of discrimination and privilege [2]
LGBTQ+
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and others - Broad umbrella term used to
describe a large population of people. The plus symbol is intended to be more inclusive,
denotes people who are not heterosexual or cisgender but who do not identify as one of the
labels of LGBTQ. For example, asexual or pansexual. As discussed earlier, the acronym
LGBTQ+ is used in this paper to refers to Hijra, Two-spirited people, Fa’afafine, MSM and
other communities who are not heterosexual and/or cisgender.
Non-binary
people
People assigned either male or female at birth who do not identify with either male or female
Queer (identity)
A term that was formerly considered a slur. It has been reclaimed and refers now to a way of
living in which people consciously challenge cisgender heterosexual norms.
Queer (research
perspective)
A term that has broadly been associated with the study and theorisation of gender and sexual
practices that exist outside of heterosexuality, and which challenge the notion that
heterosexuality and cisgender is “normal”. Queer theorists are often critical of essentialist
views of sexuality and gender. Instead, they view these as socially constructed
SOGIE
Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression
Trans-feminist
(research
perspective)
This is a perspective that emerged from queer theory. It critiques queer theory and feminist
theory for its focus on sexuality and lack of representation of transgender identities.
Transgender
An umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity or expression does not
conform to that typically associated with the sex they were born as or assigned to at birth [3]
Transgender men
People assigned female at birth who identify as male
Transgender
women
People assigned male at birth who identify as female
Table 1: Definitions of key terms used within the LGBTQ+ community
1.1.3 The Intersectional Lens. Intersectionality is a tool for analysing how our complex identities and group
memberships overlap to form our whole selves. The term was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1990 [4], when she
found that women of colour had fewer opportunities because of the combined disadvantages of their gender identity
and race. Everyone has multiple identities, be it their race, gender identity, poverty-status, sexual orientation or another
identity, and each identity has a positive or negative impact on the person’s experiences and opportunities in life. An
intersectional lens allows the researcher to analyse each identity individually, and helps us to see how the combined
effects of these identities interlock. The lens can help when discussing the diversity, equality and inclusion within a
group, and to build an equitable space where everyone has equal opportunities. Here, the intersectional lens is used to
consider how LGBTQ+ identities interlock with other identities such as race, poverty-status and social status to create
layers of oppression that lead to inequities. Within ICT4D, identities can be additionally complex as LGBTQ+
people have roles in technology development [5], international aid [6], and direct and indirect users of technology
[7–9], often bringing people from different contexts together, across geographical and cultural borders.
1.1.4 Queering Scholarship. The “queering” of scholarship is a process of adjusting research methodologies to make
queer idenitites visible. This approach, emerging from queer theory and feminist theory, seeks to subvert the taken-
for-granted assumptions in society that invisbilise people with queer identities [10]. It assumes that sex, sexuality and
gender identity are fluid, and it questions the societal assumptions that are based on stable, cisgender, heterosexual
identities [11]. This fluidity of sex, sexuality and gender identity has implications for research, indicating that there is
a greater degree of diversity than understood in the past. With this research agenda, I present how this understanding
of gender identity, sex and sexuality can guide ICT4D research to reveal insights that, until now, have been rendered
invisible.
1.2. SDGs and LGBTQ+ Communities
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a major benchmark for development organisations and a framework
often referred to in ICT4D literature. Their core mission is to “leave no-one behind”. However, seven areas within the
SDGs have been identified where the lack of explicit inclusion of LGBTQ+ people risk their exclusion from
development projects. These seven areas are (1) poverty, (2) health, (3) education, (4) gender equality and women’s
empowerment, (5) economic growth and opportunity, (6) safe resilient sustainable cities and human settlements and
(7) justice and accountability [12].
With regards to the poverty-related SDGs (SDG1 and SDG3), same-sex families are more likely to be poor than
heterosexual families, and social protections are created around the heterosexual family structure, often excluding
people who have different sexual orientations or gender expressions [13]. Within healthcare, there is a need to raise
awareness about the health rights of people who are not cisgender or not heterosexual, beyond the scope of HIV-
programmes and men who have sex with men [14]. There is a need for greater inclusion of LGBTQ+ relationships in
sex education programmes, highlighting absences and active avoidance of these topics [12]. The gender-equality
issues raised by SDG5 treat gender through the lens of cisnormativity and heteronormativity, and this should be
broadened to incorporate transgender people in gender equality discourse [15]. Vandeskog et al. [16] have further
critiqued the SDG5 for its failure to define gender, and for conflating the concept of gender with the term “woman”.
To promote economic growth and opportunities for LGBTQ+ people, and to ensure safe access to accommodation,
the SDGs should be expanded to promote workplace anti-discrimination laws for people who are not heterosexual and
people who are not cisgender. This promotes stability and reduces the risk of poverty [12,17,18]. By promoting the
abolition of discriminatory laws that actively cause emotional, physical and economic harm to LGBTQ+ people,
development organisations following the SDGs will be proactively helping LGBTQ+ people build better, safer and
more dignified lives [12].
1.3. ICT4D and LGBTQ+ Communities: The Queer Divide
The ICT4D field aims to protect vulnerable people. Since early ICT4D studies in the 1980s, the field has been
motivated by the interest in “developing countries”, and since 2001 the field has been increasingly concerned with the
ethical motivations of engaging ICTs for socio-economic development [19,20]. The SDGs, and the SDG agenda, have
been used as benchmarks for many studies in the field. The lack of reference to LGBTQ+ communities in the SDGs
should be cause for concern, as the SDGs are a major benchmark motivating research in ICT4D [21], and risks the
“leaving behind” of a substantial population. If ICT4D is to understand the adoption, use and subsequent impact of
ICTs in developing societies [22], the field needs a more thorough understanding of the vulnerable communities it
engages, and an assessment of vulnerability that transcends the binaristic focus that the field has adopted so far.
Raftree [5] discusses how, within the global South, there is an emergence of the “queer divide”, where a divide appears
to be emerging between LGBTQ+ people and people who are both cisgender and heterosexual. She suggests that this
is as a result of people being forced to disengage from “normal” society so as to lead their authentic lives in safety.
Van Zyl and McLean [9] take a queer-feminist perspective in ICT4D, raising concerns about the impact of contact
tracing on the privacy of LGBTQ+ communities, recommending that further research be conducted in ICT4D using
“a critical intersectional feminist approach which account for the lived experiences of the most vulnerable, while
critically considering the concentration of power over access to personal data”.
If ICT4D really is to “leave no one behind” it needs, in the first place, to deal with the binary and, arguably
cisnormative assumptions that underpin its literature. Such assumptions are found even in the most recent landscape
papers of the field: Walsham [20] poses the question of gender in terms of the advantages ICTs can bring for women.
This binaristic understanding of the problem unfortunately silences queer perspectives, confining the analysis of socio-
economic development advantages to traditional and crystallised gender roles. While recent works [9] and calls for
papers [23] take such perspectives as the center of their attention, ICT4D lexicon still tends to be framed in binary
terms that preclude the discussions made in this paper from happening, and LGBTQ+ communities to have a voice in
the global agenda on “leaving no one behind”.
While there has been little discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in peer-reviewed ICT4D academic discourse, these issues
have been discussed in other outlets. In 2015, the Technology Salon in New York held a conference on ICTs and
LGBTQ+ rights to discuss the challenges and possibilities. Central to this discussion was the role of the Internet and
mobile devices for building communities, and the concerns of surveillance and privacy that this increased
connectedness creates. When LGBTQ+ issues are discussed in ICT4D, the focus tends to be on LGBQ people,
omitting transgender and intersex people. Concerns were also raised at the conference by LGBTQ+ practitioners who
gave a voice to the LGBTQ+ communities. This decision lead to them “outing” themselves, which they discovered
was a trade-off that compromised the opportunities they had in their future careers. Therefore, there exists a paradox
in ICT4D whereby LGBTQ+ practitioners are crucial to the ICT4D field to identify the issues, while at the same time
their LGBTQ+ identities place them as personal risk, sometimes with grave consequences, due to the cultural and
legal contexts of many countries where ICT4D work is conducted [5].
2. Motivation for Including Queer Issues in ICT4D
I have discussed the absence of a queer-feminist perspective in peer-reviewed ICT4D outlets. I now introduce my
motivations in presenting a new research agenda to include queer issues in ICT4D. The section opens with an outline
of discriminations experienced by LGBTQ+ communities, and how information systems influence this discrimination.
2.1. Discrimination of LGBTQ+ Populations
LGBTQ+ people account for a large percentage of the world’s population, and a recent survey in the US indicates that
the number of people identifying as LGBTQ+ is growing. The study revealed that 9.1% of those born between 1981
and 1996 identify as LGBTQ+, with the number increasing to 15.9% for those born between 1997 and 2002 [24].
Despite the growing number of LGBTQ+-identifying people, these populations continue to experience discrimination,
with high levels of social, legal, political and employment hostility, violent assault and healthcare discrimination [25].
This is a global problem, affecting people in the Global North and the Global South.
In the US, 41% of transgender people experience discrimination related to healthcare [26], with similar discrimination
documented in Brazil [27]. In Indonesia, transgender populations experience rejection, misidentification, harassment,
correction and bureaucratic discrimination [28]. In 2021, two transgender women in Cameroon were arrested and
sentenced to five years in prison for “public indecency” simply for visiting a restaurant [29]. In India, transgender
people are deemed “deviants” and are subject to victimisation and discrimination that manifests in name-calling,
exclusion, rejection, outright harassment, and violence. This leads to physical and mental distress [30]. Despite
Ireland’s progressive LGBTQ+ rights, transgender discrimination leads a huge percentage (78%) of the transgender
population considering suicide [31]. Despite the systematic discrimination of many transgender people, Shon Faye
notes that the public debate on these issues has remained shallow, distracting from the core concerns experienced by
LGBTQ+ people:
As trans people face a broken healthcare system – which in turn leaves them with a desperate lack of support
both with their gender and the mental health impacts of the all-too-commonly associated problems of family
rejection, bullying, homelessness and unemployment – trans people with any kind of platform or access have
tried to focus media reporting on these issues, to no avail. Instead, we are invited on television to debate
whether trans people should be allowed to use public toilets. [33]
2.2. Information Systems and LGBTQ+ Populations
Information systems risk the perpetuation of transgender discrimination and create challenges for LGBTQ+
communities. I have identified three sources where these challenges emerge from:
(1) Digital Representation: the data models used to represent people,
(2) Data-processing Systems: the technical systems used to collect, update, aggregate and analyse data,
(3) Visibility: the impact of the inclusion of LGBTQ people in the data-sets.
One of the lenses used in the literature to examine our topic is that of data justice. Data justice is defined as “fairness
in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of their production of digital data” [34]. Taylor
[34] argues that, for establishing the rule of law, a world in which people are datafied – meaning, converted into digital
data – requires a concept of “data justice” beyond ordinary justice [35]. Data injustice can occur, as illustrated below,
in ways that result in LGBTQ+ discrimination.
2.2.1 Digital Representation: Data Models Used to Represent People. Data is not just a set of facts for satisfying
curiosity; it is the fundamental basis for decision making in modern organizations. The way data is represented has
long been known to have impact on inclusion and exclusion [36]. Rendering gender non-conforming people illegible,
thus invisible, and finally non-existent in data systems undermines their representation in data-driven processes.
Johnson [8] noted that “as data-driven decisions become increasingly the norm, attention to values, building for
pluralist rather than unitary purposes, and inclusivity in the design process will become critical elements of information
systems design”. Milan et al. [37] similarly note how data injustice can result by omitting non-legible people from
the provisions resulting from relevant systems, such as social protection and humanitarian aid.
The approach to representing gender within an information system can have serious implications for individual civil
rights protection for people whose reality is shaped by the socio-technical systems that “manage and create what
[transgender people] will be understood to deserve” [38]. This representation of gender as a binary is not just an issue
of self-actualisation. It has practical consequences related to justice and access to services, with ramifications for the
access of transgender people to healthcare services such as HIV testing [39]. Despite the pressing need to resolve these
issues, the design of information systems has proved to be inadequate for dealing with gender-variance. Despite the
social changes taking place in many countries, “information technology systems […] remain inflexible for the
purposes of recording multifactor gender information” [40].
The representation of gender and gender-diversity in an information system leads to several other manifestations of
discrimination or ignorance. A study by Kirkland [38] reviewing complaints to healthcare providers highlighted how
complaints that had arisen from transgender discrimination were miscategorised and silenced. Public health
advertisements based on traditional gender representations create barriers for transgender men for cervical cancer
screening [41] and breast-cancer screening [42]. These issues of binary gender representation are difficult to resolve.
Even the most progressive information system designers are bound to the wider institutions of gender representation.
In 2014, Facebook expanded its list of gender representation to 52. However, it received harsh criticism when it was
discovered that they were aggregating this data to a binary representation in order to remain interoperable with
marketing platforms [43].
2.2.2. Data-Processing Systems: Technical Systems Used to Collect, Update, Aggregate and Analyse Data. The
design of a data-processing system impacts on LGBTQ+ people. Information systems are sites for political
contestation and should be viewed as important loci for efforts to promote social justice. The technical systems
embody political values and have the potential to be significant contributors to social injustices affecting groups of
LGBTQ+ people [8]. For example, restricting the ease with which a gender-field can be updated in an information
system leads to many barriers for the ability of transgender people to exist in public spaces and access vital services.
In one recent example from 2020, the mismatches between identification documentation and personal gender
presentation meant that 5 million transgender people in India could not access the funds and food rations made
available as a response to the pandemic lockdown [44].
ICTs and digital identities impact on the ability of an LGBTQ+ person to access employment. Mismatches between
gender presentation and digital identities create barriers to employment. In a case from Vietnam, a transgender person
reported that they experienced discrimination when applying for employment. The gender indicated on their identity
documents did not match with their gender presentation, and it was not possible to update the identity documents. As
a result, the person could not access employment [45]. This reflects Heeks and Renken’s [46] notion of structural data
injustice, reflecting how structural injustices present in society tend to be crystallised and reflected in a datafied world.
The increased reliance of ICTs on facial recognition algorithms leads to issues for transgender and non-binary people,
such as classification of images and their potential to reinforce binary gender structures. A recent study showed that a
commonly used gender recognition algorithm was unable to correctly label non-binary people [47].
2.2.3. Visibility - Impact of the Inclusion of LGBTQ+ People in Data-Sets. SOGIE-related violence affects
people’s ability to access employment [45], healthcare [39] and other vital services [44]. As noted by Milan et al. [37],
there is a strong thread of continuity between invisibilisation of people and data injustices perpetrated on them [48,49].
LGBTQ+ people must be visible in national statistics so that governments can include them in planning decision for
healthcare and public services. However, in most countries in the world, it is unsafe for an individual to be identifiable
as being LGBTQ+. This leads to a paradox, whereby the population must be both visible for national statistics and
invisible for the safety of the individual and the population. If population-based surveys do not include items that
identify LGBTQ+ people, this limits public health surveillance and the ability to provide healthcare services [50].
If an information system exposes a person as being a member of the LGBTQ+ community, this can lead to
discrimination and harassment. For example, within the healthcare domain, there is a move to include gender identity
in electronic health records. However, many transgender and gender non-conforming people do not feel safe with this
as they are concerned that it will lead to discrimination and harassment at the point of care, or if the information is
shared or the data exposed [51]. There are concerns in other areas, such as digital identity systems, where the status
of a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation can become exposed and lead to issues in employment, education
or other services. While the increased visibility can lead to greater public awareness about the existence of LGBTQ+
populations, there are examples of how this visibility fuels a backlash and increased political opposition [33].
3. Approaches Being Explored in Related Fields
I have outlined key terminology, presented an overview of the sources of discrimination, and discussed how these
issues relate to ICT4D. I now present some promising research being conducted in related fields that explore potential
approaches for addressing some of the issues raised.
3.1. LGBTQ+ Inclusion in the SDGs
In the Mills [12] report described earlier, the SDGs were critiqued for their lack of explicit inclusion of LGBTQ+
people. She makes several recommendations for how international development actors can develop a more inclusive
understanding of the SDGs and implement them in a way that is more inclusive. She recommends that actors involve
members of the LGBTQ+ communities when developing programmes, and that they should explicitly include
LGBTQ+ communities in all programmes. Awareness should be raised among delivery partners and staff of the need
to include LGBTQ+ communities to maintain the “leave no one behind” promise. When reporting on outcomes, report
on SOGIE-related success stories and link the successes to the SDGs. International actors should use their influence
to lobby for greater inclusion of LGBTQ+ communities in international development frameworks [12]. Vandeskog et
al. [16] caution against the limited use of the term “gender” in the SDG agenda, arguing that the concept of gender is
too often conflated with “woman”. They recommend a broader understanding of the term when applying the SDG
framework.
3.2. Embodiment of Prejudice in Information Systems
Queer bodies have traditionally been sites of both regulation and resistance in information systems. By adopting the
use of queer theory, we can explore embodiment and affect beyond physical practices, pointing research practices to
become better attuned to embodied and affective power dynamics. It allows researchers to “draw connections between
bodies and feelings that necessarily factor into any information interaction” [52]. Studies in human-computer
interaction are exploring how prejudices become embodied within systems. The inscription of LGBTQ+ prejudice
within information systems often occurs unintentionally through a lack of awareness rather than through malicious
intent. Despite the lack of an intent, this embodiment of prejudice leads to many challenges for LGBTQ+ people,
perpetuating oppressions for many years and amplifying existing inequalities, reinforcing stereotypes and exposing
vulnerable populations to discrimination [53].
3.3. Participatory Design
Several studies are exploring the role that queer, transgender and other LGBTQ+ communities can play in the design
of ICTs. Haimson et al. [7] conducted studies to assess the effect of involving transgender people in the design process
for ICTs. The study found that a number of novel solutions emerged during the design process, and concluded that
there was a need for a community-based intersectional approach when developing technologies that affect transgender
people. A recent study by Brulé and Spiel [54] explored how children with queer and disabled identities can be
involved in the participatory design process. They find that participatory design allows participants to explore roles
and identities and leads to solutions that better meet their needs. They also bring insight to the challenges for LGBTQ+
people who are conducting research. LGBTQ+ researchers are under heightened scrutiny when conducting research,
and they are under pressure to reflect on their own convictions and how this could impact the participatory approach.
Cisgender heterosexual people are not expected to reflect on their beliefs about gender identity or sexual orientation.
This is despite the fact that cisgender heterosexual people also bring their individual normative identities and this can
impact on the participatory process, such as assuming a participant is heterosexual and cisgender [54].
3.4. Algorithmic Bias
Algorithmic bias, a form of data injustice perpetrated by computer systems that create unfair outcomes, emerges across
the studies reviewed here. In a study of transgender people in the UK who sought to correct the gender on their ID
cards, Hicks [55] found explicit attempts to make it impossible to conduct such an operation through the UK
government’s computer systems. Beyond instances of transphobic algorithmic bias, the paper looks at people’s
resistance against them, resulting in the exposure and rediscussion of the system in point. By inscribing users into
categories and targeting specific ones, algorithmic bias generates situations of systemic injustice for the affected
people [56].
In their study of gender classification in commercial facial analysis and image labelling services, Scheuerman et al.
[47] unpack algorithmic biases implicit in automated gender recognition. In studying how gender is encoded into such
services, they find systemic worse performance on recognition of transgender individuals and universal inability to
recognise non-binary genders. Their problematisation pertains to both classifiers and data standards: classification,
they find, is systemically predetermined on binary terms, resulting into inability of systems to conceive non-traditional
gender roles and account for them through data. This results again in the perpetuation of bias, with significant impacts
on the lives of the affected individuals.
Spiel et al. [57] introduce a non-binary perspective in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). Through the
narration of “stylised slice-of-life” reports, they narrate encounters with technology that, ranging from software for
university application to face recognition systems, can be marginalising and, to the extreme, violent and risky to non-
binary people. Narrated instantiations span the fields of lived life (from visiting a shop to crossing an international
border) to encounters occurred as non-binary researchers in the academic space. Proposing to “patch the gender bugs”
of the HCI field, Spiel et al. [57] illustrate how elements of contextualised technology, common to ICT4D, can
represent risks for non-binary people that HCI research needs to tackle.
Relatedly, DeVito et al. [58] discuss routes to support LGBTQ+ researchers and research across different disciplines.
Their work starts from the point that many disciplines, similarly to ICT4D, do not clearly tackle or give sufficient
space to perspectives beyond the binary and cisnormative. They note how, differently from that, Queer HCI is
becoming a substantial part of the broader field, and devise routes for other fields to openly embrace LGBTQ+
perspectives. In doing so, they focus on the creation of a Special Interest Group (SIG) in the core HCI conference, a
proposal that other communities, including the ICT4D one, have the elements and ability to undertake.
3.5. Designing for Marginalised Populations
While illuminating the forms of data injustice detailed above, research also shows how technology can be designed
for inclusive and, particularly, intersectional purposes, tackling diverse forms of oppression. This idea is reflected in
Costanza-Chock’s [59] notion of design justice, which conceives technology design as built towards collective
liberation of oppressed community. Advocated, in Costanza-Chock’s book “design justice”, is a form of justice where
design is oriented to challenging intersectional sources of domination.
One operationalisation of the notion of design justice is found in the work of Erete et al. [60]. Looking at established
research on participatory design, they note how marginalised groups have historically not been taken into specific
account in design processes. To explicitly engage communities at the margins, they propose a reflection on design for
underserved communities, illustrating ways in which technology – rather than just producing injustice – can increase
people’s ability to challenge such sources of oppression. Resonating with these ideas, Rohm and Martins [61] devise
routes through which technology can be adapted to voice LGBTQ+ communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
3.6. Health Information Use within LGBTQ+ Communities
Wagner et al. [53] explores the approaches to data use that transgender communities take. The study seeks to highlight
the need for healthcare providers to work more closely with transgender people when designing information systems.
These communities have data practices that have emerged from decades of oppression and persecution; practices that
maintain privacy and anonymity and seek to protect members of the community. The study concluded that closer
engagement with transgender people will lead health information system designers to create more inclusive systems
that better serve the population.
3.7, Representation of Gender Variance in Digital Identities
In recent years, researchers have come to understand both gender and sex as a continuum rather than binary states of
“male” and “female”. While the concept of a gender continuum is not new, it has been increasingly normalized over
the past decade [62]. This shift towards a pluralist understanding of gender creates challenges for information systems
designers, where gender has traditionally been represented as a binary. The gender binary system is a social construct,
created to classify the gender and sex continua [63]. This classification leads to inaccuracies in the way individuals
are classified and, therefore, represented. ‘There may not be gender categories available to adequately record the
individual’s [gender identity], and there are often no […] fields available to record gender information other than
[gender identity]’ [40].
4. Queering ICT4D Scholarship: What Does It Look Like?
I propose the introduction of a critical, queer, trans-feminist, intersectional perspective into ICT4D and IS research.
This perspective will have an impact on several key areas. The trans-feminist, queer perspective highlights new issues
experienced by a marginalised group who are exposed to discrimination through the design and use of information
systems. Introducing this perspective into the ICT4D discourse would serve to highlight the unique needs that these
communities have, and how design decisions impact on their ability to lead lives with dignity.
4.1. Serving LGBTQ+ Populations
By studying ICTs using a critical, queer, trans-feminist, intersectional perspective, the research efforts highlight new
issues experienced by a large population who have been historically silenced. The perspective highlights the pitfalls
that are experienced by neglecting these issues; pitfalls whereby large populations are under-served with healthcare
services and are exposed to discrimination. Using this lens, we can become more aware of the issues that exist. We
can find solutions that lead to a reduction in the discrimination of this vulnerable population. This lens highlights
unique socio-technical issues, exposing complex challenges and requiring novel approaches to the ethical and data-
representation challenges faced by LGBTQ+ populations in ICT4D.
4.2. Serving Other Marginalised Populations
While many of the issues raised in this paper relate directly to the experiences of transgender and other LGBTQ+
communities, the challenges can also be broadly understood as issues related to serving other vulnerable, marginalised
communities such as religious minorities and ethnic minorities. Many of the privacy and ethical issues experienced
by LGBTQ+ people in relation to information systems are also experienced by other minorities. Groups such as ethnic
minorities and religious minorities experience ongoing oppressions because of several of the challenges raised here.
Using a queer, trans-feminist, intersectional perspective on research not only highlights issues experienced by queer
populations. It also highlights issues experienced by other populations and has the potential to unearth novel solutions
that are broadly applicable to other vulnerable populations.
4.3. Richer Understanding of Data
A queer, trans-feminist, intersectional perspective looks for the data that is absent as well as the data that is present.
As Catherine Lord said of the analysis of historical records to identify LGBTQ+ people: ‘we find our archive between
the lines’ [64]. The perspective assumes that LGBTQ+ people exist now and have existed in the past. By analysing
historical data using this perspective, we can look for the people who we know existed, but who have been invisibilised
through limitations in the design of data-collection systems, or through unintentional or malicious exclusion. By
recognising queerness in historical data, these datasets can give richer insight into statistics, including healthcare
analytics. For example, by recognising a patient as having been transgender, their diagnosis, treatment, healthcare
service experience and health outcome can be better understood. This gives invaluable knowledge that can be used
for treatment plans for other transgender patients.
5. Queer Issues in ICT4D: A Research Agenda
Despite the promise of the SDGs to “leave no one behind” [12], there is evidence to suggest that this promise is not
being met for all populations on account of the absence of its reference to LGBTQ+ people and the impact this absence
has. The field of ICT4D research is motivated by engagement with human socio-economic needs and should therefore
be proactive in addressing the issues raised. The SDGs are a list of targets to achieve by 2030. The ICT4D field should
not wait until the SDG time-period ends before it begins to address these issues. They are impacting people now, and
the research should be conducted to determine how LGBTQ+ issues can be addressed within the field of ICT4D [16].
The research agenda outlined below proposes seven streams of research that ICT4D researchers can engage with to
begin addressing these issues. It builds on the work taking place in related fields of research. It is informed by the
SDG recommendations made by Mills [12], Matthyse [15] and Vandeskog et al. [16], encouraging ICT4D researchers
and system designers to create strategies that are more inclusive of LGBTQ+ people, encouraging more research
related to the unique needs of LGBTQ+ people and to tackle the experiences of populations who are being excluded
based on SOGIE. While there are many areas of research that can and should be explored through a critical, queer,
trans-feminist, intersectional lens, I proposed the following seven streams of research to begin exploring queer
approaches to research in the field of ICT4D.
Stream 1 is concerned with the processes whereby prejudice manifests within ICT system design. Stream 2 explores
the ethical and moral obligations that ICT developers have to limit the harm their systems cause to LGBTQ+ people.
Stream 3 aims to ensure that queer voices are heard during ICT development. Stream 4 is concerned with how
inequities created by ICTs affect LGBTQ+ people’s sense of self. Stream 5 seeks to expand ICT development to be
inclusive by design, and explores how this can be be achieved. Stream 6 aims to safely raise visibility of LGBTQ+
people. Stream 7 seeks to ensure that LGBTQ+ people working in ICT4D are safe from violence when carrying out
their work.
Stream 1: How LGBTQ+ Prejudices Become Embodied Within Systems
While many healthcare providers are not intentionally trans-exclusionary, the design of healthcare
information systems rely on cis-normative values, thus excluding many [transgender and non-binary people]
from accessing healthcare in comfortable and safe ways [53].
This area of research explores how LGBTQ+ prejudice becomes embodied within information systems. It investigates
how cisnormativity and heteronormativity become established and maintained, and how these normativities influence
the design decisions that are taken. It seeks to find approaches to information system design that limit the risk of
embodiment of transgender prejudice and LGBTQ+ prejudice.
Stream 2: The Role of Information System Designers in Fighting Discrimination in the Global South
Whatever our role, we are designers of information. Our choices alter the presentation and flow of human
knowledge. We control how people find, understand, and use information in every facet of their lives. We
must be very, very careful [65].
This topic explores the moral and ethical obligation that information system designers and developers have in ensuring
that their systems do not perpetuate oppressions. It asks who should take the responsibility for resolving the issues
that arise, and how these issues can be addressed. It investigates what role the system designers should take in affecting
change, and what influence they should exert in the design and implementation of their systems to guide users towards
a more equal information system and more equal society. It explores what role system designers have in ensuring that
their systems are not used to embody prejudices and amplify inequalities. Within the ICT4D field, this topic deals
with the ethics of knowledge-sharing between the global North and the global South. It explores the influence that
system designers can and should have in pushing for better guidance in the use of their systems [66].
Stream 3: Involving LGBTQ+ People in ICT4D Participatory Design
Nothing about us without us [67].
When designing information systems that will affect LGBTQ+ people, LGBTQ+ people should be involved in the
design process. This stream of research explores the role that LGBTQ+ communities should play as value advocates
in the design of information systems. It investigates what impact their involvement has on the system design and the
wider impact that the system subsequently has on the perpetuation of discrimination and access to services. It explores
the challenges of including LGBTQ+ populations in the design of systems within the ICT4D context, gathering their
input while simultaneously ensuring that their identities remain private.
Stream 4: The Impact of ICTs on LGBQT+ People’s Sense of Self and Sense of Capacity to Achieve
As transgender people, we do not expect that we can have a long-term marriage (Transgender person in
Vietnam, quoted by Oosterhoff [45]).
This stream of research investigates the role that ICTs have on the capability of LGBTQ+ people to envision a future
where they lead lives with dignity. It explores how ICTs influence members of the LGBTQ+ communities in their
vision for what they can achieve in their lives. People can only know what they can achieve if they are aware that it is
achievable and available to them [68]. There are many countries where access to legal gender recognition is only
available if a person has completed a set of medical interventions such as hormone replacement therapy or surgeries.
People’s sense of self becomes entangled in their ability to access these medical interventions, leaving people in limbo
and “dehumanised” as the glacial process of access to these interventions proceeds [69]. In many countries, the access
to legal gender recognition necessitates completing a set of these medical interventions. The barriers in healthcare and
ongoing discrimination lead to people restricting what they allow themselves to believe they can achieve [68]. These
processes disempower LGBTQ+ people, removing their agency and impacting negatively on their sense of self. This
stream of research explores the role that ICTs play within this disempowerment. It explores how the design of an
information system influences what an LGBTQ+ person believes their future can be and what they allow themselves
to aspire to.
Stream 5: Seeking “Inclusion by Design”
Lack of standardised survey items on population-based surveys to identify transgender respondents limits
existing public health surveillance [50].
This stream of research explores the implications of “inclusion by design” with regards to exposing individuals to
discrimination. Exposing LGBTQ+ identities within an information system must be done with care to reduce the risk
of exposing the individual to discrimination. We must find approaches that allow the information about LGBTQ+
people to be stored within information systems. We should seek “inclusion by design”. However, subjective
inclusiveness raises a host of challenges and ethical dilemmas, and there is a need for research and discussion of these
dilemmas, and how the ICT4D community can include LGBTQ+ populations without exposing them to further
discrimination. The inclusion of LGBTQ+ people should be the default within a system’s design, and the decision to
exclude this population should only be through a process of actively enabling the exclusion. Such an approach to
design could involve taking active steps in the development of technology to be broadly inclusive. Within the context
of gender representation, this could be achieved by incorporating predefined lists of gender identities. However, such
an approach can lead to unintended consequences related to the inclusion of vulnerable populations in information
systems.
Stream 6: Building better data-sets on LGBTQ+ People
To facilitate better programming for ICT4D projects, there is need for greater insight into the lives of LGBTQ+ people
and how ICTs lead to inequities for these marginalised communities. By building these datasets, ICT4D projects can
be better planned to accommodate their needs and the ensure that services are made available in an equitable manner.
LGBTQ+ communities are marginalised and highly vulnerable. Members may be fearful of their safety as a direct
result of their LGBTQ+ identities, living in countries where these identities are criminalised, and/or actively
persecuted. Therefore, data about these populations must be ethically sourced, securely anonymised, and follow best
practices to ensure that the members are not at risk of exposure to discrimination.
Stream 7: Reducing the risk of exposing LGBTQ+ people to violence when they conduct ICT4D work
LGBTQ+ researchers and practitioners are in a superior position to be inclusive and highlight the issues related to
LGBTQ+ people due to their awareness, exposure and experience. At the same time, much ICT4D work takes place
where LGBTQ+ people could be severely discriminated against and be in serious risk of violence. Measures and
safeguards are needed to ensure members of the LGBTQ+ communities can conduct their work in ICT4D free of such
risks. However, these are complex issues and they must be understood on a deep level to ensure the correct measures
and safe-guards can be developed so that LGBTQ+ people are safe when conducting ICT4D work.
6. Conclusion
This paper stemmed from the recognition that, while the objectives of the ICT4D field are closely intertwined with
the “Leaving No One Behind” agenda of the SDGs, the field is indeed leaving many people behind by silencing queer
issues. This is not only a contradiction, but also a condition that makes the field unliveable for LGBTQ+ researchers
[57] and makes us inadequate to elaborate recommendations for technologists, as these recommendations may end up
producing binaristic, cisnormative, heteronormative systems that put LGBTQ+ people into precarious, vulnerable
positions.
In response to this problem I have reviewed approaches to queer issues taken from other fields, cognate of ICT4D.
With the purpose of learning from such fields, I have delineated a queer ICT4D agenda, exploring how biases are
embedded in our systems and, vice versa, how technologies for socio-economic development can be designed towards
inclusive, liberating purposes for LGBTQ+ people.
Firstly, I find that engagement of ICT4D with queer issues is a necessary step towards refocusing the field’s agenda
on the world it faces. While the field presents some attention to gender, the binaristic focus found in landscape papers
up until recent days [20] is inadequate to represent the real world, and more dangerous given the enhanced
vulnerabilities suffered by queer communities [9]. As a result, with this paper I want to openly incorporate queer issues
in the field, delineating a path towards active measures for voicing queer issues in ICT4D forums. The track on
“Feminist and Queer Approaches in ICT4D” in the IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference, as well as the Queer HCI group
created in HCI, are examples of such measures.
Secondly, I think it is crucial that a queer agenda inspires the engagements of ICT4D researchers with practice. This
is important to avoid an absence of queer perspectives to be reflected in socio-economic development systems [57],
resulting in technologies that deny queer identities and put LGBTQ+ users at risk of violence, threat or marginalisation.
Producing technologies that caution against such bias is inevitably a concerted effort of researchers and practitioners,
in which the researcher has the responsibility to formulate recommendations that caution against bias. It is in the light
of this responsibility that this paper’s agenda has been devised.
While a history of binarism, cisnormativity and heteronormativity affects ICT4D, other fields, such as STS [70] and
HCI [58], demonstrate the urgency of incorporating a queer agenda into pre-existing fields. When such fields engage
vulnerable people, as ICT4D intends to do since its early days, such an urgency is even more pronounced. LGBTQ+
issues in ICT4D have been raised in the past outside of the peer-reviewer ICT4D discourse. However, there has been
little discussion of the issues within peer-reviewed ICT4D academic discourse. I hope, with this paper, to have made
further steps towards a conversation the field must have, to devise an agenda that makes LGBTQ+ issues a priority
topic of ICT4D research.
7. Acknowledgement
I would like to show my gratitude to Dr. Johan Ivar Sæbø, Assistant Professor at the Department of Informatics,
University of Oslo, for his support and encouragement, and for his contributions to the structure of this paper. I would
also like to thank Dr. Silvia Masiero, Assistant Professor at the Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, for her
guidance through the literature on data justice, for her comments, and for the encouragement she gave me throughout
the preparation of this research agenda.
7. References
[1] Yaghoubi-Notash M, Mohammad VN, Soufiani M. Language, gender and subjectivity from Judith Butler’s
perspective. Philos Investig 2020:12.
[2] Crenshaw KW. On Intersectionality: Essential Writings. New York, NY, USA: The New Press; 2017.
[3] Mayer KH, Bradford JB, Makadon HJ, Stall R, Goldhammer H, Landers S. Sexual and Gender Minority Health:
What We Know and What Needs to Be Done. Am J Public Health 2008;98:989–95.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.127811.
[4] Crenshaw K. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.
Stanford Law Rev 1991;43:61.
[5] Raftree L, Kumar M. An Understanding of LGBTQI Rights and Technology for Development «. Technol Salon
Discuss Intersect Technol Dev 2015. https://technologysalon.org/an-understanding-of-lgbtqi-rights-and-
technology-for-development/ (accessed April 10, 2022).
[6] Kumar M. Digital Security of LGBTQI Aid Workers: Awareness and Response. Eur Interag Secur Forum EISF
2020:13.
[7] Haimson OL, Gorrell D, Starks DL, Weinger Z. Designing Trans Technology: Defining Challenges and
Envisioning Community-Centered Solutions. Proc. 2020 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., Honolulu HI
USA: ACM; 2020, p. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376669.
[8] Johnson JA. Information Systems and the Translation of Transgender. TSQ Transgender Stud Q 2015;2:160–5.
https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2848940.
[9] van Zyl I, McLean N. The Ethical Implications of Digital Contact Tracing for LGBTQIA+ Communities. 2021.
[10] Browne K, Nash CJ, editors. Queer methods and methodologies: intersecting queer theories and social science
research. Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 2010.
[11] Thiel M. Queering Scholarship?: LGBT Politics as an Analytical Challenge for Political Science and International
Relations. In: Bosia MJ, McEvoy SM, Rahman M, editors. Oxf. Handb. Glob. LGBT Sex. Divers. Polit., Oxford
University Press; 2020, p. 119–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190673741.013.5.
[12] Mills E. ‘Leave No One Behind’: Gender, Sexuality and the Sustainable Development Goals 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_HRD-0148-2015071.
[13] GALANG. How Filipino LBTs Cope with Economic Disadvantage. Brighton: IDS; 2015.
[14] Müller A. Teaching lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender health in a South African health sciences faculty:
addressing the gap. BMC Med Educ 2013;13:174. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-174.
[15] Matthyse L. Achieving gender equality by 2030: Transgender equality in relation to Sustainable Development
Goal 5. Agenda 2020;34:124–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2020.1744336.
[16] Vandeskog HO, Heggen KM, Engebretsen E. Gendered vulnerabilities and the blind spots of the 2030 Agenda’s
‘leave no one behind’ pledge. Crit Policy Stud 2021;0:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2021.2014342.
[17] Swank E, Fahs B, Frost DM. Region, Social Identities, and Disclosure Practices as Predictors of Heterosexist
Discrimination Against Sexual Minorities in the United States. Sociol Inq 2013;83:238–58.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12004.
[18] Botti F, D’Ippoliti C. Don’t ask don’t tell (that you’re poor). Sexual orientation and social exclusion in Italy. J
Behav Exp Econ 2014;49:8–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.02.002.
[19] Avgerou C. Theoretical Framing of ICT4D Research. Inf Commun Technol Dev ICT4D 2017 2017. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1007/978-3-319-59111-7_2.
[20] Walsham G. ICT4D research: reflections on history and future agenda. Inf Technol Dev 2017;23:18–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1246406.
[21] Heeks R. Future Priorities for Development Informatics Research from the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
SSRN Electron J 2014. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438434.
[22] Dey B, Sorour K, Filieri R, editors. ICTs in Developing Countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137469502.
[23] Vannini S, Masiero S, Tandon A, Wellington C, Wyers K, Braa K. Feminist and Queer Approaches to ICT4D.
Special Issue Call for Papers. Inf Technol Dev 2021.
[24] Gallop. LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest US Estimate. Gallop Poll 2021.
[25] Reed R. Dignity in Transgender Lives: A Capabilities Approach. J Hum Dev Capab 2020;21:36–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2019.1661982.
[26] Bradford J, Reisner SL, Honnold JA, Xavier J. Experiences of Transgender-Related Discrimination and
Implications for Health: Results From the Virginia Transgender Health Initiative Study. Am J Public Health
2013;103:1820–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300796.
[27] Costa AB, da Rosa Filho HT, Pase PF, Fontanari AMV, Catelan RF, Mueller A, et al. Healthcare Needs of and
Access Barriers for Brazilian Transgender and Gender Diverse People. J Immigr Minor Health 2018;20:115–
23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-016-0527-7.
[28] Gordon D, Pratama MP. Mapping Discrimination Experienced by Indonesian Trans* FtM Persons. J Homosex
2017;64:1283–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1244446.
[29] Peltier E. Cameroon Sentences Transgender Women to 5 years in Prison. N Y Times 2021.
[30] Rani N, Samuel AA. Reducing transphobia: comparing the efficacy of direct and indirect contact. Ind Commer
Train 2019;51:445–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-12-2018-0102.
[31] Mcneil J, Bailey L, Ellis S, Regan M. Speaking from the margins: Trans mental health and well-being in Ireland
2013.
[32] Murib Z. Administering Biology: How “Bathroom Bills” Criminalize and Stigmatize Trans and Gender
Nonconforming People in Public Space. Adm Theory Prax 2020;42:153–71.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659048.
[33] Faye S. The Transgender Issue: An Argument for Justice. London, UK: Allen Lane; 2021.
[34] Taylor L. What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data Soc
2017;4:205395171773633. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335.
[35] Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K. Big data : a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think 2013.
[36] Bowker GC, Star SL. Sorting things out : classification and its consequences 1999.
[37] Milan S, Treré E, Masiero S. Introduction: COVID-19 seen from the land of otherwise. Covid-19 Margins
Pandemic Invisibilities Policies Resist. Datafied Soc., Amsterdam, NL: Institue of Network Cultures; 2021, p.
14–23.
[38] Kirkland A. Dropdown rights: Categorizing transgender discrimination in healthcare technologies. Soc Sci Med
2021;289:114348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114348.
[39] Saraswathi A, Praveen PA. To analyse the problems of transgender in India/study using new triangular combined
Block Fuzzy Cognitive maps. Int J Sci Eng Res 2015;6:186–95.
[40] Costelloe SJ, Hepburn S. Management of transgender patients in Laboratory Information Management Systems
– Moving on from binary and ternary logic. Ann Clin Biochem Int J Lab Med 2021;58:264–6.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563220984825.
[41] Dhillon N, Oliffe JL, Kelly MT, Krist J. Bridging Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening in Transgender Men: A
Scoping Review. Am J Mens Health 2020;14:1557988320925691. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988320925691.
[42] Roznovjak D, Petroll A, Cortina CS. Breast Cancer Risk and Screening in Transgender Individuals. Curr Breast
Cancer Rep 2021;13:56–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-020-00403-x.
[43] D’Ignazio C, Klein LF. Data Feminism. MIT Press: Mass.; 2020.
[44] Pandya A kumar, Redcay A. Access to health services: Barriers faced by the transgender population in India. J
Gay Lesbian Ment Health 2021;25:132–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2020.1850592.
[45] Oosterhoff P, Hoang T-A, Trang Q. Negotiating Public and Legal Spaces: The Emergence of an LGBT
Movement in Vietnam. 2014. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3463.9129.
[46] Heeks R, Renken J. Data justice for development: What would it mean? Inf Dev 2018;34:90–102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666916678282.
[47] Scheuerman MK, Paul JM, Brubaker JR. How Computers See Gender: An Evaluation of Gender Classification
in Commercial Facial Analysis Services. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact 2019;3:1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3359246.
[48] Taylor L, Sharma G, Martin A, Jameson S. What does the COVID-19 response mean for global data justice?
Data Justice COVID-19 Glob. Perspect., Meatspace Press; 2020.
[49] Weitzberg K, Cheesman M, Martin A, Schoemaker E. Between surveillance and recognition: Rethinking digital
identity in aid. Big Data Soc 2021;8:205395172110067. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211006744.
[50] Reisner SL, Poteat T, Keatley J, Cabral M, Mothopeng T, Dunham E, et al. Global health burden and needs of
transgender populations: a review. The Lancet 2016;388:412–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(16)00684-X.
[51] Dunne MJ, Raynor LA, Cottrell EK, Pinnock WJA. Interviews with Patients and Providers on Transgender and
Gender Nonconforming Health Data Collection in the Electronic Health Record. Transgender Health 2017;2:1–
7. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2016.0041.
[52] Floegel D, Wagner TL, Delmonaco D, Watson BM. Expanding Our Conceptions of Embodied and Affective
Information Interactions with Queer Theory. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2021;58:582–6.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.503.
[53] Wagner TL, Kitzie VL, Lookingbill V. Transgender and nonbinary individuals and ICT-driven information
practices in response to transexclusionary healthcare systems: a qualitative study. J Am Med Inform Assoc
2021:ocab234. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocab234.
[54] Brulé E, Spiel K. Negotiating Gender and Disability Identities in Participatory Design. Proc. 9th Int. Conf.
Communities Technol. - Transform. Communities, New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing
Machinery; 2019, p. 218–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328320.3328369.
[55] Hicks M. Hacking the Cis-tem. IEEE Ann Hist Comput 2019;41:20–33.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2019.2897667.
[56] Noble SU. Algorithms of oppression : how search engines reinforce racism 2018.
[57] Spiel K, Keyes O, Barlas P. Patching Gender: Non-binary Utopias in HCI. Ext. Abstr. 2019 CHI Conf. Hum.
Factors Comput. Syst., Glasgow Scotland Uk: ACM; 2019, p. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3310425.
[58] DeVito MA, Walker AM, Lustig C, Ko AJ, Spiel K, Ahmed AA, et al. Queer in HCI: Supporting LGBTQIA+
Researchers and Research Across Domains. Ext. Abstr. 2020 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., Honolulu
HI USA: ACM; 2020, p. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381058.
[59] Costanza-Chock S. Design Justice : Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Cambridge: The
MIT Press; 2020.
[60] Erete S, Israni A, Dillahunt T. An intersectional approach to designing in the margins. Interactions 2018;25:66–
9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194349.
[61] Rohm R, Martins J. The LGBTQ+ community during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil. COVID-19 Margins
Pandemic Invsibilities Policies Resist. Datafied Soc., Amsterdam, NL: Institue of Network Cultures; 2021, p.
65–9.
[62] Castleberry J. Addressing the Gender Continuum: A Concept Analysis. J Transcult Nurs 2019;30:403–9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659618818722.
[63] Butler J. Gender Trouble. US: Routledge; 1990.
[64] Lord C. Medium: Ink on Paper. GLQ J Lesbian Gay Stud 2011;17:639–47. https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-
1302442.
[65] Martin LM. Everyday Information Architecture. 1st ed. A Book Apart; 2019.
[66] Connell R. Southern Theory. Cambridge, UK.: Polity Press; 2007.
[67] Scheim AI, Appenroth MN, Beckham SW, Goldstein Z, Grinspan MC, Keatley JG, et al. Transgender HIV
research: nothing about us without us. Lancet HIV 2019;6:e566–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-
3018(19)30269-3.
[68] Nussbaum M. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press: Cambs.
Massachusetts; 2011.
[69] Pitts-Taylor V. “A slow and unrewarding and miserable pause in your life”: Waiting in medicalized gender
transition. Health Interdiscip J Soc Study Health Illn Med 2020;24:646–64.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459319831330.
[70] Hofstätter B, Thaler A, Jauk D, En B, Klaura IM. Irritating, Intervening, Interacting: Doing Queer Science and
Technology Studies 2016;1:35.
