This video from
"...the trouble with library classification and cataloging systems in the project of fixity itself: as we attempt to contain entire fields of knowledge or ways of being in accordance with universalizing systems and structures, we invariably cannot account for knowledges or ways of being that are excess to and discursively produced by those systems. From a queer perspective, critiques of LCC [ Library of Congress Classification] and LCSH [Library of Congress Subject Headings] that seek to correct them concede the terms of the knowledge organization project: that a universalizing system of organization and naming is possible and desirable."
-Drabinski, E. (2013). Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 83(2), 94-111. doi:10.1086/669547
Terminology changes over time, and some disciplines reflect these changes more than others. When researching topics related to LGBTQIA+ communities you may need to use search terms that are outdated and offensive, particularly if it is an historical topic. An example of this is that the PubMed MeSH terms "Gender dysphoria", "Disorders of sexual development", "Sexual and gender minorities" are obviously ones that the communities themselves would not use and are extremely broad. If you have questions on how to structure a search with various terms please see "Creating an Effective Search" and/or reach out to a librarian.
One might have to utilize DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders from the American Psychiatric Association) and earlier DSMs diagnoses in a search about LGBTQIA+ Health. The timeline below shows a brief overview of ways that LGBTQIA+ identities have been historically labeled as psychiatric disorders. The shift away from harmful psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM over time has largely been thanks to past and present activists in LGBTQIA+ communities (Daley & Mulé, 2014). Even though LGBTQIA+ identities are no longer explicitly considered psychiatric diagnoses like they once were, there are still ways that the DSM-5 is used to harmfully pathologize LGBTQIA+ identities.
The debate regarding the DSM-5 diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" is a prime example of these issues. Some advocates argue that this diagnosis is necessary to ensure health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care such as hormonal therapy or surgery, however other advocates and activists believe the inclusion of diagnoses that reference the trans experience, contribute to the continued pathologization of people who are transgender. It's important to consider this context and these histories when carrying out LGBTQIA+ health research.
Daley, A., & Mulé, N. J. (2014). LGBTQs and the DSM-5: A critical queer response. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(9), 1288-1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.926766