Considering First Nations LGBTIQ+ identity in anti-racist healthcare: Relations between comfort in healthcare, microaggressions and wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations scholars and practitioners have increasingly called for anti-racist healthcare to address disparate health outcomes between First Nations and non-First Nations Australians. However, these arguments largely miss the significant negative impact that colonial heterosexism and cisgenderism (i.e. discrimination and marginalisation of queer and transgender peoples) have on LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning) First Nations peoples' wellbeing. To address this gap, survey data from 63 First Nations LGBTIQ+ adults in Western Australia were utilised to illustrate the impact of racism, heterosexism and cisgenderism in healthcare settings on First Nations LGBTIQ+ peoples' wellbeing. This study examined relations between participant wellbeing and 1) their comfort in being asked about their LGBTIQ+ and First Nations identity by a health provider, and 2) their experiences of race-based and LGBTIQ+-based discrimination (microaggressions) in broader community settings. Higher comfort in being asked about LGBTIQ+ identity was associated with higher wellbeing, whereas experiencing LGBTIQ+-based microaggressions within First Nations communities was associated with lower wellbeing. These findings add to the literature by showing that First Nations LGBTIQ+ patients experience additional discrimination. This paper also discusses findings with reference to settler-colonial racism (i.e. the racism enacted against First Nations LGBTIQ+ peoples to maintain settler norms and control) and offers suggestions for updating anti-racist healthcare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".