skip to main content
10.1145/3472714.3473618acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

By Queer People, For Queer People: : FOLX, Plume, and the Promise of Queer UX

Published:12 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

This research paper presents a dual case study of two mHealth platforms—Plume and FOLX-which provide patient-users access to gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). The paper argues that beyond simply increasing access to GAHT, these platforms promise a queer user experience and that they design communication and platform interactions in service of that goal. The paper details and theorizes several of the prominent design choices made by these mHeath platforms, including centering the queerness of clinicians and platform designers, promoting the voices of users, and creating opportunities for individuals to give back to their community. The paper argues that these platforms offer a queer vision of what healthcare might look like, one focused less on individual access to care and more on community support and celebration. The paper concludes with implications for future research and for both online and brick and mortar healthcare providers.

References

  1. Keshab R. Acharya. 2018. Usability for user empowerment: Promoting social justice and human rights through localized UX design. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication. 6 (August 2018). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233756.3233960.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A.G. Breitenstein. 2020. Why did we found FOLX Health? Medium. Retrieved May 21, 2021 from https://agbreitenstein.medium.com/why-did-we-found-folx-health-b8bfec1cb157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Camilla Brown, Hélène Frohard-Dourlent, Brittany A. Wood, E. Saewyc, Marala E. Eisenberg, and Carla M. Porta. 2020. “It makes such a difference”: An examination of how LGBTQ you talk about personal pronouns. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 32(1), 70-80. doi: 10.1097/JXX.0000000000000217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. Diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2018. HIV Surveillance Report. Retrieved on May 21, 2021 from https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance/vol-31/index.html .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019. National Overview-Sexual Transmitted Disease Surveillance, 2019. Retrieved on May 21, 2021 from https://www.cdc.gov/std/statistics/2019/overview.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sarah D. Cochran, Vickie M Mays, and J Geer Sullivan. 2003. Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 53-61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Nadia L. Dowshen, Julie Christensen, and Siobhan M. Gruschow. 2019. Health insurance coverage of recommended gender-affirming health care services ofr transgender youth: Shopping online for coverage information. Transgender Health, 4(1), 131-135. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2018.0055.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Katherine T. Durack. 1997. Gender, technology, and the history of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6(3), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq0603_2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Avery C. Edenfield, Steve Holmes, and Jared S. Colton. 2019. Queering tactical technical communication: DIY HRT. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1607906.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Jennifer K. Felner, Jennifer P. Wisdom, Tenneill Williams, Laura Katuska, Sean J. Haley, Hee-Jin Junn, and Heather L. Corliss. 2020. Stress, coping, and context: Examining substance use among LGBTQ young adults with probably substance use disorders. Psychiatric Services, 71(2), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900029.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Erin Frost and Michelle Eble. 2015. Technical Rhetorics: Making Specialized Persuasion Apparent to Public Audiences. Present Tense, 4(2). Retrieved on May 21, 2021 from https://www.presenttensejournal.org/volume-4/technical-rhetorics-making-specialized-persuasion-apparent-to-public-audiences/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Erin Frost. 2016. Apparent Feminism as a Methodology for Technical Communication and Rhetoric. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(1). DOI: 10.1177/1050651915602295.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Elizabeth S. Goins and Danee Pye. 2012. Check the box that best describes you: Reflexivity managing theory and praxis in LGBTQ health communication research. Health Communication, 28, 397–407.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. McKinley Green. 2020. Resistance as participation: Queer theory's application for HIV health technology design. Technical Communication Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1831615.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Healthy People 2020. 2014. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trangender Health. Retrieved March 3, 2021 from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-health.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. 2017. The growing value of digital health: Evidence and impact on human health and the healthcare system. IQVIA Institute of Human Science. Retrieced on May 21, 2021 from https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/institute-reports/the-growing-value-of-digital-health.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Natasha N. Jones. 2016. The technical communicator as advocate: Integrating a social justice approach to technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(3), 342-361. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047281616639472.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Jennifer Kates, Usha Ranji, Adara Beamesderfer, Alina Salganicoff, and Lindsey Dawson. 2018. Health and access to care and coverage for LGBT Individuals in the U.S. Racial Equity and Health Policy. Retrieved March 3, 2021 from https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/health-and-access-to-care-and-coverage-for-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-individuals-in-the-u-s/view/footnotes/#footnote-256162-3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kacie M. Kidd, Gina M. Sequeira, Taylor Paglisott, Amy Hillier, Elizabeth Miller, and Nadia Dowshen. 2020. “This could mean death for my child”: Parent perspectives on laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.09.010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Amy Koerber. 2000. Toward a feminist rhetoric of technology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(1), 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F105065190001400103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. J.G.L. Lee, G.K. Griffin, C.L. Melvin. 2009. Tobacco use among sexual minorities in the USA, 1987-2007: A systematic review. Tobacco Control, 18(4), 275-282. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2008.028241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. David J. Lick, Laura E. Durso, and Kerri L. Johnson. 2013. Minority stress and physical health among sexual minorities. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(5), 521-548. DOI: 10.1177/1745691613497965.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Alexander J. Martos, Patrick A. Wilson, and Ilan H. Meyer. 2017. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health services in the United States: Origins, evolution, and contemporary Landscape. PLoS ONE, 12(7), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180544.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Ilan H. Meyer and David M. Frost. 2018. Minority stress and the health of sexual minorities. In C.J. Patterson & A.R. D'Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation (pp. 255-266). Oxford. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Shabab A. Mirza and Caitlin Rooney. 2018. Discrimination prevents LGBTQ people from accessing health care. Center for American Progress. Retrieved March 3, 2021 from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/news/2018/01/18/445130/discrimination-prevents-lgbtq-people-accessing-health-care/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. National LGBTQ Task Force. n.d. New report reveals rampant discrimination against transgender people by health providers, high HIV rates and widespread lack of access to necessary care. Rerieved March 3, 2021 from  https://www.thetaskforce.org/new-report-reveals-rampant-discrimination-against-transgender-people-by-health-providers-high-hiv-rates-and-widespread-lack-of-access-to-necessary-care-2/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Nicole L. Nisly, Katherine L. Imborek, Michelle L. Miller, Nancy Dole, Jacob B. Priest, Leonard Sandler, Matthew D. Krasowski, and Maia Hightower. 2018. Developing an inclusive and welcoming LGBTQ clinic. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 61(4) 646-662. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000405.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. David G. Ostrow and Ron Stall. 2008. Alcohol, tobacco, and drug use among gay and bisexual men. In R.J. Wolitski, R. Stall, & R.O. Valdiserri (Eds.), Unequal opportunity: Health disparities affecting gay and bisexual men in the United States. Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301533.001.0001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Joshua G. Parmenter, R.V. Galliher, & A.D.A. Maughan. 2020. LGBTQ+ emerging adults perceptions of discrimination and exclusion within the LGBTQ+ community. Psychology and Sexuality. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1716056.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Naith Payton. 2015, July. The dangers of trans broken arm syndrome. PinkNews. Retrived on May 21, 2021 from https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/09/feature-the-dangers-of-trans-broken-arm-syndrome/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Emily January Petersen & Rebecca Walton. 2018. Bridging analysis with action: How feminist scholarship can inform the social justice turn. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(4) 416-466. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1050651918780192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Mari E. Ramler. 2020. Queer usability. Technical Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1831614.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Emma J. Rose. 2018. Social justice in UX: Centering marginalized users. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication. 21 (August 2018). ACM, New York, NY, USA. DOI:10.1145/3233756.3233931.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Matthew B. Schabath, Katherine A. Blackburn, Megan, E. Sutter, Peter A. Kanetsky, Susen E. Vadaparampil, Vani N. Simmons, Julian A Sanchez, Steven K. Sutton, and Gwendolyn P. Quinn. 2019. National survey of oncologists at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers: Attitudes, knowledge, and practice behaviors about LGBTQ patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 37(7), 547-558. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.18.00551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Marika Seigel. 2009. Instructions for systemic change. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 76-99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Pooja D. Utamsingh, Laura S. Richman, Julie L. Martin, Micah R. Lattanner, and Jeremy R. Chaikind. 2016. Heteronormativity and practitioner– patient interaction. Health Communication, 31, 566–574. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2014.979975.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Walls, Douglas M. 2016. User experience in social justice contexts. In the proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, 9 (September 2016). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2987592.2987604.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Rebecca Walton, Kristen Moore, & Natahsa Jones. 2019. Technical Communication after the social justice turn: Building coalitions for action. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Michael Zaliznyak, Eric E. Jung, Catherine Bresee, and Maurice M. Garcia. 2021. Which U.S. states’ Medicaid programs provide coverage for gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender affirming genital surgery for transgender patients?: A state-by-state review, and a study detailing the patient experience to confirm coverage of services. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(2), 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.11.016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGDOC '21: Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
    October 2021
    402 pages
    ISBN:9781450386289
    DOI:10.1145/3472714

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 12 October 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format