Next Article in Journal
The Impact of a Virtual Environment for Intergenerational Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Intimate Lovers, Legal Strangers—The Politics of Dissident Relationality in Portugal
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/socsci12030145
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Terminology and Language Used in Indigenous-Specific Gender and Sexuality Diversity Studies: A Systematic Review

by
Michael J. Fox
and
Haorui Wu
*
School of Social Work, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12(3), 145; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030145
Submission received: 24 November 2022 / Revised: 25 February 2023 / Accepted: 27 February 2023 / Published: 2 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Gender Studies)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cultural responsivity in academic research is central to the use of language that is representative and inclusive of Indigenous worldviews on gender and sexuality diversity. This article uses the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) approach to explore current studies’ contribution to the use of gender and sexuality diverse terminology and language that is representative of Indigenous worldviews. A systematic review of 85 journal articles (published between January 2000 and June 2021) generates both quantitative results regarding the frequency of terms used and qualitative outcomes of actively used terminologies, geographic regions, identified populations, and gender and sexuality diversity-specific themes in Indigenous studies. A substantial glossary of terminology characteristic of the multiplicity of gender and sexuality diversity was identified, however, further research examining gender and sexuality diversity from the perspective of Indigenous worldviews is needed to align with the best practices of equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging.

1. Introduction

Indigenous studies and the dominance of Eurocentric and settler colonial discourses may generate terminologies that are not suitable to describe or reflect the values, beliefs, and norms of gender and sexuality diversity in Indigenous communities around the world. Indeed, de Laurentis (as cited in Hicks and Jeyasingham 2016, p. 2358) contends “that the field known as lesbian and gay studies is largely silent on questions of race, gender, and attendant differences of class or ethnic culture, generational, geographical, and socio-political location.” Similarly, Roy Chow (as cited in Smith 2010, p. 43) argues that “native studies often confine themselves and are confined to the realm of ethnic or cultural representation rather than positioning themselves as an intellectual project that can shape scholarly discourse as a whole.” As the governance of these terms may be perpetuated by dominant social discourses, or taken-for-granted as assumed truths, academic research may perpetuate the use of language and terminology that is not inclusive of Indigenous worldviews.
Given that academic foci on gender and sexuality diversity and Indigenous research do not often intersect, current studies have yet to effectively integrate both fields. Developed in 2015, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis), one of the most widely used systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols, helps researchers, practitioners, and policy-/decision makers, to identify evidence-based strategies from existing literature to support knowledge synthesis, practical intervention development, and policy design through rigorous data identification, screening, extension, and review (Page et al. 2021a, 2021b). Hence, the PRISMA framework is aligned with the aim of this study.
Utilizing the PRISMA systematic review approach, this paper is guided by the overall research question: what does current research contribute to the use of gender and sexuality diverse terminology and language that is inclusive and representative of Indigenous worldviews? To answer this question, quantitative and qualitative research objectives were developed to address two sub research questions, respectively: (1) what are the terminologies used in academic research of gender and sexuality diversity pertaining to Indigenous worldviews? And (2) how do these diverse terminologies, associated with their geographic distributions and sub-Indigenous population groups, contribute to the examination of gender and sexuality diversity from an Indigenous worldview in academic research? This paper outlines current academic studies’ use of language for gender and sexuality diverse groups as well as themes found on how gender and sexuality diversity is examined from an Indigenous worldview.

2. Materials and Methods

A social constructivist perspective was applied to the defining of gender and sexuality, as it is viewed as a helpful lens to move beyond normative interpretations of fixed gender and sex identities. According to Hemmings (as cited in Goodine 2015, p. 112) social constructivism “rejects the notion that sex and gender identities are discrete categories” and “consider both as continua influenced by multiple variables” such as historical, geographical, social, and cultural contexts. Due to the fluidic, contextual, and ever-evolving nature of terminology used to describe gender and sexuality, these authors used Google as well as their personal and professional experiences and interactions as the base for their initial search keywords to reflect current terminology that may be encountered.
The PRISMA approach was used to develop and report this systematic review (Page et al. 2021a, 2021b), including developing keywords, choosing databases, assessing for inclusion and exclusion, and reviewing and analysis (Lee et al. 2016). As part of the social science and humanitarians’ nature of this research, two groups of keywords (gender and sexuality diversity and Indigenous worldview) were developed (see Table 1) and five databases were identified, namely the Web of Science, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and the Gender Studies Database.
The data search period ranged from January 2000 to June 2021 and focused on English journal articles. The researchers limited journal articles to after the year 2000 to gain insight into current and contemporary reflections of gender and sexuality. Eeden-Moorefield et al. (2018) suggest there have been prolific changes in the rights and experiences of LGBT individuals over the last two decades, and this has resulted in a significant increase in LGBT-related research. Furthermore, Soldatic et al. (2021a, p. 2) denote that “terms used for both Indigenous and gender and sexuality diverse people are highly contested and have changed over time, emerging out of a long history of resistance to colonial settler and binary, heteronormative, heteropatriarchal, cis-gendered values.” As such, the researchers will use the term gender and sexuality diversity (Soldatic et al. 2021a) and Indigenous throughout this paper in solidarity of inclusivity. The data search and analysis consisted of the following two quantitative and qualitative steps.

2.1. Quantitative Data Curation and Analysis

The first group of keywords representing gender and sexuality diversity were used to search in the five databases to create quantitative data regarding the frequency of terms used in current academic research. Certain terms were excluded because of their use in abbreviated form, such as men that have sex with men (MSM), variations in the traditional lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and transgender and non-conforming (TGNC) acronym, as well as Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI). However, in recognition of the expansive diversity of gender and sexuality, an asterisk was used to account for variations in these terms in all database searches. The acronym QUILTBAG (queer, questioning, unsure, intersex, lesbian, transgender, two-spirit, bisexual, asexual, aromatic, gay, and genderqueer) and iterations of POC (people of colour) were also included to account for additional variations. The frequency of each term was then calculated, identifying the top three for each database searched (these results are presented in Table 2).

2.2. Qualitative Data Curation and Analysis

The quantitative results showed that the Web of Science database offered more search results than the other four databases. Considering that the five databases have overlaps in their indexed journals, the qualitative data search was conducted by combining the two groups of keywords in the Web of Science database. This search yielded 222 journal articles.
This was a systematic review of terminology and language used in Indigenous-specific gender and sexuality studies, and inclusion criteria were established to set boundaries. In defining Indigenous worldviews, we sought journal articles that met one or more of the following four inclusion criteria: a focus on Indigenous communities including cultural, social, and communal knowledge bases as it related to the use of gender and sexuality diverse terminology and language; the use of LGBT terminology along the continuum of sexuality, sex, sexual identity, gender, gender identity and gender expression; inclusion or proposal of inclusive language that is representative of Indigenous gender and sexuality communities worldwide; and identified and/or discussed the impact of settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy on gender and sexuality diverse terminology and language.
Zoom meetings were scheduled to compare coding, and any differences were reconciled through discussion and consensus from both authors. A thematic analysis was then conducted to identify, analyze, organize, describe, and report the themes found within the data set (Nowell et al. 2017). The authors corresponded through email to compare themes and reconciled any differences. The authors excluded articles that focused on non-Indigenous populations; did not relate specifically to the examination of gender and sexuality diversity; focused on cis-gender or heterosexuality exclusively; and, focused on LGBT needs that were not directly related to gender and sexuality diverse terminology and language.
After de-duplication, each author independently screened the title, abstract, and keywords of 222 journal articles for inclusion or exclusion, removing journal articles that did not clearly relate to the research question. The researchers identified 85 journal articles that met the inclusion criteria (10.17605/OSF.IO/Y62EZ). Starks and Trinidad (Nowell et al. 2017, p. 2) view this stage of data analysis as an important step for researchers to code, theme, decontextualize and recontextualize their data. Figure 1 outlines the systematic review process using the PRISMA flow diagram.
A thematic approach was used to further analyze the 85 journal articles by each author independently through the following two rounds of analysis. The first round concentrated on summarizing the variations and use of gender and sexuality diverse language as well as the country, geographic region (as defined by the United Nations Statistic Division n.d.) and Indigenous population identified in each journal article. The second round focused on mapping themes related to Indigenous worldviews, and gender and sexuality diversity. The following five categories were developed as part of this analysis: cultural and ethnic identity as factors that influence attitudes toward gender and sexual identity and roles; Indigenous values, beliefs and attitudes about gender and sexuality diversity; Indigenous and other acts of activism as resistance to gender and sexuality oppression; colonialism’s impact on the conception, construction, and experience of gender and sexuality; and, developments in the understanding of the health care needs, and supports, of Indigenous and gender and sexuality diverse populations.

3. Results

3.1. Gender and Sexuality Diversity: Commonly Used Terminology

A summary of the frequency of commonly used terminology in academic research to identify gender and sexuality diverse groups is presented in Table 2. The results showed that the top three most used terms for each database is as follows: gender identity, gay and gender expression (Web of Science), gay, lesbian, and transgender (PsycINFO), gay, lesbian, and transgender (Social Work Abstracts), gender identity, gay, and lesbian (Sociological Abstracts), and gay, lesbian, and gender identity (Gender Studies Database). Since Web of Science offered the majority of the literature, the frequency of each term was searched in the Web of Science database again. The outcome revealed that there was no generally agreed upon use of different terminology. However, gender identity, gay and transgender appeared to be the most used terms in Indigenous studies.

3.2. Gender and Sexuality Diversity: Terminology, Geographic Distribution and Populations

In review of the terminology, there appeared to be no consistent meaning to the language used to describe and identify gender and sexuality diversity. Table 3 provides a summary of forty-one terms used by the authors in the reviewed articles. The irregularity was most apparent in the use of the initialism LGBT with fifteen different iterations being encountered. Queer, transgender, two-spirit, gay, lesbian, homosexual(ity), and bisexual appeared to occur the most while Bi+, QPOC, non-binary gender and third gender appeared the least. A very small sample used Indigenous specific language such as the Native American Berdache, the Navajo na’dleehi, the Anishinaabe Agokwe, India’s Hijra, Native Hawaii’s Mahuwahine, Chile’s Mapuche Machi, Papa New Guinea’s Sambia, and Arabia’s Xanith.
In review of geographic distribution, a total of twenty-six countries and regions were included in the examined journal articles. Table 4 provides a summary of these countries and regions. Australia, Canada, India, and the United States appeared to be the most referred to countries in the North American, Southern Asia, and Oceania regions. In comparison, Britain, Chile, Columbia, Guatemala, Japan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta, Mozambique, New Zealand, Panama, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Turkey and the Middle East and North African regions appeared only in special interest journal articles. None of the reviewed journal articles appeared to address Indigenous views on gender and sexuality in Middle and Western Africa, the Caribbean, Central Asia, Eastern, Southern and Western Europe, and Micronesia regions.
In review of the identified populations, there appeared to be some consistency in the use of language that is representative of specific Indigenous populations. Table 5 provides a summary of the forty-eight identified populations. However, commonly used terms such as Indian, Aboriginal, and Indigenous appeared to have multiple interpretations that were dependent on the meaning attributed by the author(s) as well as their geographic region and location. Furthermore, these authors identified the use of the word Indian as a specific source of confusion when authors used the term interchangeably to either refer to nationals and citizens of India, or the Indigenous peoples of North, Central and South America.

3.3. Gender and Sexuality Diversity-Specific Themes in Indigenous Studies

Since most of the journal articles reviewed in the systematic analysis focused on different Indigenous populations worldwide, and defined these Indigenous populations based on their origins or characteristics in a particular country or region, five themes (see Table 6) were identified as sub narratives in the examination of gender and sexuality diversity.
The first theme identifies culture and ethnic identity as social structures that influence attitudes, values, and beliefs about gender and sexuality identity and performativity. Identity and performativity are intertwined within norms that national and cultural social groups then use “to structure complex realities and make sense of the social world around them” (Motschenbacher 2014, p. 51). These socially shared norms are generally taken for granted and prescriptive (Wu and Mackenzie 2021) in which “both individuals and society expect an adherence to these norms” (Motschenbacher 2014, p. 52).
Thirty-two journal articles examined culture and ethnic identity as influences on attitudes toward gender and sexuality identity and the social enforcement of these expectations in their research. Of these, eleven focused on cultural and ethnic social norms and expectations of gender and sexuality diversity (Dadabhoy 2014), such as western and non-western identities and social categories (Moran 2017; Gonzalez 2020; Roldugina 2019), symbols of female gender identity in South African Venda speaking women (Dederen 2011; Rasch 2020), Asian Indian, South Indian and Hindu traditional gender roles (Devasahayam 2005; Tummala-Narra et al. 2017), masculine and feminine gender roles of the Embera people (Colin 2013), Japanese masculine and feminine forms of speech (Itakura 2008), and gender identity and relationship development through parental mothering practices in Cape Verdean and Indo-Mozambican migrants (Trovao 2016), or Indian educational institutions (Maheshwari 2019).
Ten journal articles examined cultural and ethnic identity as social structures that influence sexual citizenship, sense of belonging, and exclusion (Ejaz and Moscowitz 2020; Gilley 2012; Prankumar et al. 2021; Ung Loh 2018) as well as the intersections of ethnicity, gender, and sexuality (Herrick 2018; Renninger 2012) through colonial history and transnationalism (Bulbeck 2010; Catungal 2017), migration (Hapke and Ayyankeril 2018), and immigration and settlement (Kurien 1999). In addition, four identified heteropatriarchy and heteronormativity as dominant, traditional social structures (Aikau 2021; Carrim 2016; Hemmila 2016; Pauwels 2020), and five examined how non-normative gender and sexuality diversity was seen as a threat to normative gender and sexuality and cultural values (Gopinath 2000; Kapur 2000; Manohar 2008; Neti 2017; Tandon 2019).
The second theme observes Indigenous values, beliefs, and attitudes regarding gender and sexuality diversity. Indigenous populations are distinguished as having a deeply rooted history and spiritual and cultural connection with gender and sexuality diversity in their worldviews. Robinson (2020, p. 1680) suggests that “due in part to the variety of gender expression there is no easy translation from Indigenous gender systems into Settler equivalents [without] imposing concepts of gender that are anachronistic, foreign, and colonizing.” This is exemplified by Tafoya (McNeil-Seymour 2015, p. 91), who further posits from an Indigenous conception, “if one takes the line between male and female, or gay and straight, and bends it into a circle, theoretically, there are an infinite number of gender and sexuality identities.”
Eighteen journal articles explored Indigenous understandings of gender and sexuality diversity. Of these, nine identified Indigenous worldviews as consisting of a multigender framework (Hoffman et al. 2021; Robinson 2020; Woodward 2015), viewing gender and sexuality as diverse (Garrett and Barret 2003; Rasch 2020), and a complex system rather than a static binary system (Carrier et al. 2020; Ellingson and Odo 2008; Walley 2018). Four journal articles discussed the spiritual and cultural reverence of special gender and sexuality identities (O’Brien 2015), such as the men-women and women-men of the Dine, Navajo culture (House 2016), theories of Kanaka Maoli in Native Hawaiian (Osorio 2020), and the Mapuche Machi in Chile (Bacigalupo 2009). Six journal articles identified the navigation of racial and gender and sexuality identity in a colonial context (Adams and Phillips 2009; Fernandes 2016; Hemmila 2016; Rzepka 2017; Walters 2019; Wexler et al. 2014) as an important development in Indigenous worldviews.
The third theme identifies Indigenous and other acts of activism as resistance to the oppression of gender and sexuality diversity. Leslie Feinberg (as cited in Robinson 2020, p. 1676) posits “settlers have historically interpreted Indigenous peoples’ acceptance of more than two genders as evidence of our moral inferiority and used this to justify genocide, the theft of native lands and resources, and destruction of their cultures and religions.” According to Farrell (2017, p. 1), “the reclamation and self-determination of Indigenous [gender and sexuality] identity is crucial in … conversations as a ‘new frontier’ of identity politics that revives knowledge about our ancient diversities as well as asserting our identities as self-defined and contemporary.”
Thirty journal articles investigated Indigenous and gender and sexuality diversity activism. Of these, nine explored the decolonization of dominant discourses (Aikau 2021; Ellasante 2021; Moreno 2019; Schweighofer 2018), such as heteronormativity in Indigenous queer and LGBTIQA+ spaces (Henningham 2021), Indian citizenship (Ung Loh 2018), heterosexism and racial domination in South Africa (Spurlin 2010), afro-Brazilian homonationalism (Da Silva 2019), and racial and gender discrimination of transgender Indigenous Australians (Sullivan and Day 2019). Nine interrogated and critiqued hegemonic settler colonial binaries of gender and sexuality (Benson 2020; Farrell 2016; Mehra 2016; Osorio 2020; Preston 2020; Robinson 2020) through the re-appropriation of deviant and pathologizing western discourses (Towle and Morgan 2002; Woodward 2015), and representation, rather than sensationalization, of plural gender and sexuality diversity (Chanda 2018). Twelve journal articles advocated for the integration of culturally responsive contexts (Bennett and Gates 2019; Medhi 2016; Sullivan 2018; Waugh 2001) to vocalize oppression (Farrell 2017), teach gender and sexuality diverse and Indigenous literatures (Day 2020; Ellingson and Odo 2008; Hanson 2018; Murib 2018), and use Indigenous traditional healing methods and ceremonial practices (Estrada 2016; Garrett and Barret 2003; Gilley 2010) with Indigenous and gender and sexuality diverse groups.
The fourth theme identifies colonialism’s impact on the conception, construction and experience of gender and sexuality. Scott Morgensen (as cited in Schweighofer 2018, p. 497) has examined settler colonialism and uses the term “‘settler sexuality’ to denote the forms of white national heteronormativity that regulate Indigenous sexuality and gender by supplanting them with the sexual modernity of settler subjects.” As part of this theme, Moran (2017, p. 1304) poignantly posits, “settler colonialism is a structure that continually threatens to eliminate the Indigene.”
Twenty-five journal articles specifically examined colonialism and settler colonialism’s impacts on the conception, construction and experience of gender and sexuality. Of these, six analyzed the power hierarchies and dominance of settler colonial gender and sexuality norms (Bacigalupo 2009; Rodriguez-Dorans 2019; Spurlin 2010; Trovao and Araujo 2020), such as the creation of racism and land rhetoric of Indigenous lesbians (Schweighofer 2018), white heteronormativity thinking towards transgendered Aboriginals in Australia (Sullivan 2018), and the framing of non-normative genders as acts of deviancy, immorality, and inferiority in Hawaii and New Zealand (Woodward 2015). Nine identified the consequences of colonial and settler colonial oppression and marginalization (Ellis 2015; Lehavot et al. 2009; Scudeler 2006), such as sexism and cultural assimilation of LGBTQ people of colour (Moreno 2019), violence and institutionalized racism toward Indigenous peoples (Henningham 2021; Quezada 2019), and the stigmatization of non-normative gender and sexuality (Da Silva 2019; Ellingson and Odo 2008; Neti 2017). Similarly, nine journal articles studied colonialism and settler colonialism as an institutionalized tool (Balestrery 2012; Day 2020) and social categorization (Moran 2017), such as cultural imperialism (Ellasante 2021), homonationalism (Benson 2020; Hall 2020), heteropatriarchy, capitalism, and white supremacy (Aikau 2021), used against Indigenous communities through forced settlement, extraction, and cultural genocide (Preston 2020; Robinson 2020).
The fifth theme identifies developments in the understanding of the health care needs and supports of Indigenous and gender and sexuality diverse populations. Angelino et al. (2020b, p. 631) suggest that settler colonialism has “systematically removed acceptance from [Indigenous] communities” and “exacerbated historical and intergenerational trauma present among [Indigenous] communities.” As a result, there has been a call for the recognition that “diversity is more than black and white and each person’s experiences reflects shades of gray that relate to the complexities of those experiences” and “diverse experiences … may relate to realities contrary to a perceived understanding” (Mehra 2016, p. 188).
Ten journal articles examined Indigenous and gender/sexuality diverse healthcare and relevant support. Of these, six identified barriers faced when accessing health care, such as historical trauma and systematic issues from settler colonialism in American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) transgender and two-spirit youth (Angelino et al. 2020b), AIAN culturally specific resources (Angelino et al. 2020a), a lack of understanding of gender and sexuality diverse issues and needs of Lebanese LGBT (Chidiac 2020; Shah et al. 2019; Soldatic et al. 2021b), and overrepresentation of Aboriginal LGBTIQ(SB)+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, sistergirl, and brotherboy) in the criminal justice system in Australia (Phelan and Oxley 2021). Two identified health disparities, such as social and emotional well-being in Indigenous queer populations (Henningham 2021), and disproportionate levels of violence in American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) communities (Lehavot et al. 2009). Six advocated for specific recommendations for improvement to health care such as understanding the intersection of identities and community strengths (Angelino et al. 2020b), understanding the intersection of diversity, information, and leadership (Mehra 2016), supporting families through culturally grounded resources (Angelino et al. 2020a; Phelan and Oxley 2021; Soldatic et al. 2021b), and addressing heterosexual attitudes toward homosexuals (Ahuja 2017).

4. Discussion

This literature review employs a mixed-method approach to examine the current literature quantitatively and qualitatively regarding gender and sexuality diversity in Indigenous studies. The quantitative analyses measure the frequency of terminology, geographic distribution, and Indigenous identified populations. The thematic qualitative analysis provides in-depth information regarding the geographic distribution, Indigenous identified populations, and associated themes regarding the development of gender and sexuality diversity in Indigenous studies. Synthesizing the two components of outcomes, this section further identifies future research topics. The researchers would like to acknowledge that this synthesis creates tension between the notion that there is not a shared language for gender and sexuality diversity and the idea that any shared language would have colonized Indigenous worldviews. This tension accentuates the importance of cultural responsivity in academic research.
There has been an increased focus on gender and sexuality diversity in academic research. Indeed, through this systematic review, there appears to be a robust glossary of terminology that is illustrative of the multiplicity of gender and sexuality diversity. However, there appears to be a discontinuity in how these terms are applied and their meaning; this could be attributed to the language used to describe gender and sexuality diverse groups. According to Mule (2015), this results from the intersections of race, ethnicity, religion, and class, and gender and sexuality diversity which can have profound implications on how language is used. This became more apparent with the inclusion of Indigenous worldviews, which further appears to be regional and context dependent. This could imply that their diverse meanings, including Indigenous gender and sexualities, have not yet been completely explored. Future research could address this knowledge deficit by promoting the inclusion of Indigenous worldviews while reflecting the similarities and difference among the different Indigenous-identified groups.
Comparably, it appears that a small sample of academic researchers have attempted to be inclusive of Indigenous gender and sexuality diverse groups by exploring the beliefs, values, and attitudes of specific Indigenous communities. However, as identified in our qualitative findings, researchers have principally focused on broader archetypes of cultural and ethnic identity, the dominance of colonialism, Indigenous acts of activism and resistance, as well as specific health needs of Indigenous and gender and sexuality diverse populations. As a result, we are unable to identify more vigorous conclusions as to why there is so little published on Indigenous worldviews on gender and sexuality diversity. This should indicate the importance of more culturally appropriate research in fields that address the needs of Indigenous peoples. Research that promotes and sustains all aspects of shared knowledge and affirms the multiplicity of Indigenous identities.
This also accentuates the importance of establishing a more comprehensive knowledgebase of Indigenous worldviews on gender and sexuality diversity in academic research. Rather than focusing on universal terminology, it may be more advantageous to develop and identify language that is based on geographic locations that can be further refined by regional contexts. We need more research that is representative of the actual voices of Indigenous populations to tell us about their experiences, understandings and teachings on gender and sexuality diversity. This type of research should further explore, as identified by Hicks and Jeyasingham (2016, p. 2362), “how we take up sexual/gender identity, how these categories come to mean what they do, and what institutional practices give meanings to those categories.” However, we cannot make too many assumptions without the active participation of Indigenous peoples in the development of this knowledge. According to Soldatic et al. (2021a), this inclusion may form stronger connections with cultures that value gender and sexuality diversity resulting in affirming, visible connections, positive identities, and increased feelings of belonging and mutual respect. This would advance more culturally responsive academic research practices that are reflective of diverse Indigenous worldviews in the future.

Limitations

It is important to identify the following limitations of this systematic review. Indigenous scholarly outputs have been published in various venues, including journal articles, books, book chapters, and reports. Focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles has meant that other resources have been largely ignored. The search filters were restrictive to the English language with publications occurring between 2000–2021. English was chosen because it is the most commonly used language in presenting scholarly outputs worldwide. However, a multi-language systematic review could help balance and capture the specificity of gender and sexual identity, particularly in the native languages of Indigenous populations. Similarly, the inclusion of journal articles prior to the year 2000 may provide a richer perspective on the development of the inclusion of Indigenous worldviews on gender and sexuality diversity in academic research. Furthermore, the researchers narrowed the qualitative data curation to one specific database. Expanding the systematic review to include a greater number of databases could have resulted in the inclusion of additional journal articles.
The systematic review demonstrates that indigenous issues and gender and sexuality diversity associated with the full spectrum of societal dimensions (e.g., social, cultural, economic, and political) have gained attention worldwide. Both researchers are non-Indigenous, completed their education in North America, and primarily live in eastern Canada. The second author has collaborated with Indigenous scholars on different Indigenous studies (Wu and Stukes 2020). The research expertise and the Indigenous-related networks enable the engagement of diverse perspectives in this literature review. They recognize the impact of eurocentrism, settler-colonialism and whiteness on their own understanding and interactions within gender and sexuality diversity. They also acknowledge their own limitations in understanding of Indigenous values, beliefs, and traditions due to their non-Indigenous backgrounds. Moreover, due to the fluidic, contextual, and ever-evolving nature of terminology used to describe gender and sexuality, new terminology may already exist, such as 2SLGBTQQIA+ (two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, and all other sexualities and genders) (Patteson 2021). Although the researchers feel that the keyword search term group represents the multiplicity of gender and sexuality diversity, future systematic reviews should consider the constantly changing landscape of gender and sexuality diversity.

5. Conclusions

Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, this study reviewed what current research contributes to the use of terminology and language that is inclusive and representative of Indigenous worldviews. The results from the systematic review identified a substantial glossary of terminology that is characteristic of the multiplicity of gender and sexuality diversity. The quantitative analyses indicates that gay, lesbian, transgender, gender identity, and gender expression were identified as the most frequently occurring terms. However, the researchers were only able to identify a small sample of academic research that specifically focused on the examination of gender and sexuality diversity in Indigenous worldviews. The United States, India, Australia, and Canada feature the major study settings for most of the reviewed articles. Indian and Indigenous were the most frequently used terms to identify Indigenous sub-populations. The qualitative analysis outcomes further identified the most common forms of gender and sexuality diversity examination was through the themes of culture and ethnic identity, the impact of colonialism, acts of resistance to gender and sexual oppression, and the health care needs of gender and sexuality diverse groups.
Cultural responsivity in academic research is central to the use of language that is representative of Indigenous worldviews on gender and sexuality diversity. As part of this responsivity, it is important to be aware of the influence of dominant settler-colonial, heteronormative and patriarchal discourses on language, and how researchers and institutions interact within these systemic structures. The results indicate that more research examining gender and sexuality diversity from the perspective of Indigenous worldviews is needed. Further research may consider how to embed this information in different levels of education, engaging Indigenous populations worldwide in disseminating their knowledge on gender and sexuality diversity, and increasing researchers’ accountability and commitment to the principles of cultural responsivity as well as equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.W.; methodology, M.J.F. and H.W.; software, M.J.F.; validation, M.J.F.; formal analysis, M.J.F. and H.W.; investigation, M.J.F.; data curation, M.J.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.J.F.; writing—review and editing, M.J.F. and H.W.; visualization, M.J.F.; supervision, H.W.; project administration, H.W.; funding acquisition, H.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research Development Grant, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University (Award# 2020–2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N35ZY (accessed on 24 February 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adams, Heather L., and Layli Phillips. 2009. Ethnic related variations from the cass model of homosexual identity formation: The experiences of two-spirit, lesbian and gay native Americans. Journal of Homosexuality 56: 959–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ahuja, Kanika K. 2017. Development of attitudes toward homosexuality scale for Indians (AHSI). Journal of Homosexuality 64: 1978–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Aikau, Hokulani K. 2021. Mana wahine and mothering at the lo’l: A two-spirit/queer analysis. Australian Feminist Studies 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Angelino, Alessandra C., Shaquita Bell, Alison Roxby, Morgan Thomas, Jessica Leston, Tumaini R. Cocker, and Julia M. Crouch. 2020a. Developing resources for American Indian/Alaska native transgender and two-spirit youth, their relatives, and healthcare providers. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 14: 509–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Angelino, Alessandra, Teresa Evans-Campbell, and Bonnie Duran. 2020b. Assessing health provider perspectives regarding barriers American Indian/Alaska native transgender and two-spirit youth face accessing health care. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 7: 630–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Bacigalupo, Ana Mariella. 2009. The re-invention of Mapuche male shamans as catholic priests: Legitimizing indigenous co-gender identities in modern Chile. In Native Christian: Modes and Effects of Christianity Among Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. Edited by Aparecida Vilaca and Robin M. Wright. Surrey: Routledge, pp. 89–107. [Google Scholar]
  7. Balestrery, Jean E. 2012. Intersecting discourses on race and sexuality: Compounded colonization among LGBTTQ American Indians/Alaska natives. Journal of Homosexuality 59: 633–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bennett, Bindi, and Trevor G. Gates. 2019. Teaching cultural humility for social workers serving LGBTQI aboriginal communities in Australia. Social Work Education 38: 604–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Benson, Krista. 2020. What’s in a pronoun? The ungovernability and misgendering of trans Native kids in juvenile justice in Washington state. Journal of Homosexuality 67: 1691–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bulbeck, Chilla. 2010. ‘Fond of cooking, interested in studies, a good daughter’: The gendered identities of young Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Australians. Contributions to Indian Sociology 44: 129–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carrier, Leah, Jessy Dame, and Jennifer Lane. 2020. Two-spirit identity and indigenous conceptualization of gender and sexuality: Implications for nursing practice. Creative Nursing 26: 96–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Carrim, Nasima Mohamed Hoosen. 2016. Gender and cultural identity work of unmarried Indian Breadwinner daughters in south Africa. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 47: 441–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Catungal, John Paul. 2017. The lessons of travel: Teaching queer Asian Canada through Joella Cabalu’s it runs in the family and Alejandro Yoshizawa’s all our father’s relations. Topia (Montreal) 38: 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chanda, Anurima. 2018. “Herstory” in twenty-first century Indian English children’s literature: Subverting gender binaries in mayil will not be quiet! And queer of ice. Southeast Asian Review of English 55: 84–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chidiac, Claude. 2020. First steps: Health and social care professionals beginning to address the palliative and end of life care needs of people with diverse gender identities and sexual orientations in Lebanon. Sexualities 25: 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Colin, France-Lise. 2013. Commodification of indigenous crafts and reconfiguration of gender identities among the Embera of eastern Panama. Gender, Place & Culture 20: 487–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Da Silva, Daniel. 2019. Black mothers and black boats: Queer, indigenous, and afro-Brazilian intersections in Ney Matogrosso’s “Mae preta (Barco negro)”. Journal of Lusophone Studies 4: 208–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dadabhoy, Ambereen. 2014. “Going native”: Geography, gender, and identity in lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s Turkish embassy letters. In Gender and Space in British Literature. Edited by Mona Narain and Karen Gevirtz. London: Routledge, pp. 49–66. [Google Scholar]
  19. Day, Madi. 2020. Indigenist origins: Institutionalizing indigenous queer and trans studies in Australia. Transgender Studies Quarterly 7: 367–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dederen, Jean-Marie. 2011. ‘A dog with a collar…’ Field notes of an ‘indigenous wedding gown. Anthropology Southern Africa 34: 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Devasahayam, Theresa W. 2005. Power and pleasure around the stove: The construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. Women’s Studies International Forum 28: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eeden-Moorefield, Brad, April L. Few-Demo, Kristen Benson, Jacqueline Bible, and Shannon Lummer. 2018. A content analysis of LGBT research in top family journals 2000–2015. Journal of Family Issues 39: 1374–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ejaz, Khadija, and Leigh Moscowitz. 2020. Who ‘framed’ Ramchandra Siras? Journalistic discourses of sexual citizenship in India. Sexualities 23: 951–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ellasante, Ian Khara. 2021. Radical sovereignty, rhetorical borders, and the everyday decolonial praxis of indigenous peoplehood and two-spirit reclamation. Ethnic and Racial Studies 44: 1507–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ellingson, Lyndall, and Carol Odo. 2008. HIV risk behaviors among Mahuwahine (native Hawaiian transgender women). AIDS Education and Prevention 20: 558–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Ellis, Nadia. 2015. Black migrants, white queers and the archive of inclusion in postwar London. International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 17: 893–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Estrada, Gabriel. 2016. Ojibwe lesbian visual aids: On the red road with Carole Lefavor, her giveaway (1988), and native lgbtq2 film history. Journal of Lesbian Studies 20: 388–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Farrell, Andrew. 2016. Lipstick clapsticks: A yarn and a kiki with an Aboriginal drag queen. AlterNative 12: 574–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Farrell, Andrew. 2017. Archiving the aboriginal rainbow: Building on aboriginal LGBTIQ portal. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 21: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Fernandes, Estevao Rafael. 2016. Analytical perspectives on indigenous homosexualities: Considerations from a comparative study. Mundo Amazonico 7: 101–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Garrett, Michael Tlanusta, and Bob Barret. 2003. Two Spirit: Counseling Native American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual People. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 31: 131–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gilley, Brian Joseph. 2010. Native sexual inequalities: American Indian cultural conservative homophobia and the problem of tradition. Sexualities 13: 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gilley, Brian Joseph. 2012. Gay American Indian men’s mobility and sexual sedentarism in the United States census rules of residence. Human Organization 71: 149–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gonzalez, Ann. 2020. The queering of chac mool. The Latin Americanist 64: 62–76. [Google Scholar]
  35. Goodine, Ron. 2015. The silent b: The erasure of bisexuality. In LGBTQ People and Social Work: Intersectional Perspectives. Edited by Brian J. ONeill, Tracy A. Swan and Nick J. Mule. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., pp. 107–26. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gopinath, Gayatri. 2000. Queering Bollywood: Alternative sexualities in popular Indian cinema. Journal of Homosexuality 39: 283–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hall, Laura. 2020. Revisiting ’69 celebration and challenging settler homonationalism in the (un)just society. Journal of Canadian Studies 54: 228–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hanson, Aubrey Jean. 2018. On teaching queer indigenous literatures. English in Australia 53: 68–72. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hapke, Holly M., and Devan Ayyankeril. 2018. Gulf migration and changing patterns of gender identities in a south Indian Muslim community. In Gender, Work and Migration. Edited by Megha Amrith and Nina Sahraoui. London: Routledge, pp. 175–92. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hemmila, Anita. 2016. Ancestors of two-spirits: Historical depictions of native north American gender-crossing women through critical discourse analysis. Journal of Lesbian Studies 20: 408–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Henningham, Mandy. 2021. Blak, bi+ and borderlands: An autoethnography on multiplicities of Indigenous queer identities using borderland theory. Social Inclusion 9: 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Herrick, Rebekah. 2018. The gender gaps in identity and political attitudes among American Indians. Politics & Gender 142: 186–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hicks, Stephen, and Dharman Jeyasingham. 2016. Social work, queer theory and after: A genealogy of sexuality theory in neo-liberal times. British Journal of Social Work 46: 2357–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Hoffman, Adam J., Beth Kurtz-Costes, and Janae Shaheed. 2021. Ethnic-racial identity, gender identity, and well-being in Cherokee early adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 27: 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. House, Carrie. 2016. Blessed by the holy people. Journal of Lesbian Studies 20: 324–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Itakura, Hiroko. 2008. Attitudes towards masculine Japanese speech in multilingual professional contexts of Hong Kong: Gender, identity, and native-speaker status. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29: 467–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kapur, Ratna. 2000. Too hot to handle: The cultural politics of fire. Feminist Review 64: 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kurien, Prema. 1999. Gendered ethnicity: Creating a Hindu Indian identity in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist 42: 648–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, Joseph G. L., Thomas Ylioja, and Mellanye Lackey. 2016. Identifying lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender search terminology: A systematic review of health systematic reviews. PLoS ONE 11: e0156210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Lehavot, Keren, Karina L. Walters, and Jane M. Simoni. 2009. Abuse, mastery, and health among lesbian, bisexual, and two-spirit American Indian and Alaska native women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 15: 275–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Maheshwari, Disha. 2019. Discourses of victimhood and agency: A case study of a teenage Indian girl negotiating her identity in a gendered world. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies 25: 239–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Manohar, Namita. 2008. “Sshh…!! Don’t tell me parents”: Dating among second-generation patels in Florida. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 39: 571–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. McNeil-Seymour, Jeffrey. 2015. Cross-dancing as culturally restorative practice. In LGBTQ People and Social Work: Intersectional Perspectives. Edited by Brian J. O’Neill, Tracy A. Swan and Nick J. Mule. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., pp. 87–107. [Google Scholar]
  54. Medhi, Hemjyoti. 2016. Gender and identity politics: Arupa Patangia Kalita’s felanee (the story of felanee) and Rita Chowdhury’s ei samay sei samay (times now and then). Asiatic 10: 43–53. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mehra, Bharat. 2016. Cultural re-interpretation of race/ethnicity and sexuality: A gay south Asian “voice” from between a rock and a hard place. In Celebrating the James Partridge Award: Essays Towards the Development of a More Diverse, Inclusive, and Equitable Field of Library and Information Science. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 42, pp. 171–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Moran, Anthony. 2017. Is trans-race possible in an era of unsettled identities? Ethnic and Racial Studies 40: 1299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Moreno, Shantelle. 2019. Love as resistance: Exploring conceptualizations of decolonial love in settler states. Girlhood Studies 12: 116–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Motschenbacher, Heiko. 2014. Focusing on normativity in language and sexuality studies. Critical Discourse Studies 11: 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mule, Nick J. 2015. The politicized queer, the informed social worker: Dis/re-ordering the social order. In LGBTQ People and Social Work: Intersectional Perspectives. Edited by Brian J. O’Neill, Tracy A. Swan and Nick J. Mule. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., pp. 17–36. [Google Scholar]
  60. Murib, Zein. 2018. Unsettling the GLBT and queer coalitions in US politics through the lens of queer indigenous critique. New Political Science 40: 165–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Neti, Leila. 2017. “The love laws”: Section 377 and the politics of queerness in Arundhati Roy’s the god of small things. Law and Literature 29: 223–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nowell, Lorelli S., Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules. 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Method of Qualitative Methods 16: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. O’Brien, Suzanne Crawford. 2015. Gone to the spirits: A transgender prophet on the Columbia plateau. Theology & Sexuality 21: 125–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Osorio, Jamaica Heolimeleikalani. 2020. Gathering stories of belonging: Honouring the Mo’olelo and ancestors that refuse to forget us. Australian Feminist Studies 35: 336–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021a. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 10: 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Page, Matthew J., David Moher, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Issabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021b. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. Research Methods and Reporting 372: 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Patteson, Callie. 2021. Justin Trudeau mocked after using ‘2SLGBTQQIA+’ acronym. The New York Post. October 7. Available online: https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/justin-trudeau-mocked-after-using-2slgbtqqia-acronym/ (accessed on 15 November 2022).
  68. Pauwels, Matthias. 2020. Intersections of queer art and African indigenous culture: The case of inxeba (the wound). Journal of British Society for Phenomenology 51: 366–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Phelan, Peta, and Robyn Oxley. 2021. Understanding the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal LGBTIQ(SB)+ youth in Victoria’s youth detention. Social Inclusion 9: 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Prankumar, Sujith Kumar, Peter Aggleton, and Joanne Bryant. 2021. Belonging, citizenship and ambivalence among young gay, bisexual and queer Indian Singaporean men. Asian Study Review 45: 155–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Preston, V. K. 2020. Queer and indigenous art: Performing ice times in climate crisis. Theatre Journal 72: 143–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Quezada, Vick. 2019. Cart no.1, monoecious fruits, the harvest of 1519. Transgender Studies Quarterly 6: 556–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rasch, Elisabet Dueholm. 2020. Becoming a Maya woman: Beauty pageants at the intersection of indigeneity, gender and class in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. Journal of Latin American Studies 52: 133–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Renninger, Bryce J. 2012. Documenting the queer Indian: The question of queer identification in Khush and happy hookers. In LGBT Transnational Identity and the Media. Edited by Christopher Pullen. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 181–96. [Google Scholar]
  75. Robinson, Margaret. 2020. Two-spirit identity in a time of gender fluidity. Journal of Homosexuality 67: 1675–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Rodriguez-Dorans, Edgar. 2019. The maltese cactus: An autoethnography of the colonization of desire. Text and Performance Quarterly 39: 229–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Roldugina, Ira. 2019. ‘Why are we the people we are?’ early soviet homosexuals from the first-person perspective: New sources on the history of homosexual identities in Russia. In Soviet and Post-Soviet Sexualities. Edited by Richard C.M. Mole. London: Routledge, pp. 16–31. [Google Scholar]
  78. Rzepka, Charles J. 2017. Red and white and pink all over: Vacilada, Indian identity, and Todd Downing’s queer response to modernity. Texas Studies in Literature and Language 59: 353–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Schweighofer, Katherine. 2018. A land of one’s own: Whiteness and indigeneity on lesbian land. Settler Colonial Studies 8: 489–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Scudeler, Jane. 2006. “The song I am singing”: Gregory Scofield’s interweaving’s of Metis, gay and Jewish selfhoods. Studies in Canadian Literature 31: 129–45. [Google Scholar]
  81. Shah, Shagun Bhatia, Puneet Khanna, Rashmi Bhatt, Priyanka Goyal, Rakesh Garg, and Rajiv Chawla. 2019. Perioperative anaesthetic concerns in transgender patients: Indian perspective. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 63: 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Smith, Andrea. 2010. Queer theory and native studies: The heteronormativity of settler colonialism. GLQ 16: 41–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Soldatic, Karen, Linda Briskman, William Trewlynn, John Leha, and Kim Spurway. 2021a. Social and emotional wellbeing of indigenous gender and sexuality diverse youth: Mapping the evidence. Culture, Health & Sexuality 24: 564–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Soldatic, Karen, Linda Briskman, William Trewlynn, John Leha, and Kim Spurway. 2021b. Social exclusion/inclusion and Australian first nations LGBTIQ+ young people’s wellbeing. Social Inclusion 9: 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Spurlin, William J. 2010. Resisting heteronormativity/resisting recolonization: Affective bonds between indigenous women in southern Africa and the difference(s) of postcolonial feminist history. Feminist Review 95: 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Sullivan, Corrinne Tayce. 2018. Majesty in the city: Experiences of an aboriginal transgender sex worker in Sydney, Australia. Gender, Place & Culture 25: 1681–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sullivan, Corrinne Tayce, and Madi Day. 2019. Indigenous transmasculine Australians & sex work. Emotion, Space and Society 32: 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tandon, Sahil. 2019. Queering Indian classical music: An exploration of sexuality and desire. Sexuality & Culture 23: 154–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Towle, Evan B., and Lynn M. Morgan. 2002. Romancing the transgender native: Rethinking the use of the “third gender” concept. GLQ 8: 469–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Trovao, Susana Salvaterra. 2016. Culture, ambivalence, and schismogenesis: Mothering double binds and gendered identities within Cape Verdean and Indian migrant families. Culture & Psychology 22: 232–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Trovao, Susana Salvaterra, and Sandra Araujo. 2020. Ambivalence, gender and national identity imaginings on Indian otherness in Mozambique during the estado novo (1933–1974). Gender & History 32: 411–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tummala-Narra, Pratyusha, Jaclyn Houston-Kolnik, Nina Sathasivam-Rueckert, and Megan Greeson. 2017. An examination of attitudes toward gender and sexual violence among Asian Indians in the United States. Asian American Journal of Psychology 8: 156–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ung Loh, Jennifer. 2018. Transgender identity, sexual versus gender ‘rights’ and the tools of the Indian state. Feminist Review 119: 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. United Nations Statistic Division. n.d. M49 Standard: Geographic Regions. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#geo-regions (accessed on 28 July 2021).
  95. Walley, Meghan. 2018. Exploring potential archaeological expressions of nonbinary gender in pre-contact Inuit contexts. Artic Collections 42: 269–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Walters, Jordan Biro. 2019. “So let me paint”: Navajo artist R.C. Gorman and the artistic, native, and queer subcultures of San Francisco, California. Pacific Historical Review 88: 439–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Waugh, Thomas. 2001. Queer Bollywood, or “I’m the player, you’re the naïve one”: Patterns of sexual subversion in recent Indian popular cinema. In Keyframes: Popular Cinema and Cultural Studies. Edited by Matthew Tinkcom and Amy Villarego. London: Routledge, pp. 280–97. [Google Scholar]
  98. Wexler, Lisa, Kristen Eglinton, and Aline Gubrium. 2014. Using digital stories to understand the lives of Alaska native young people. Youth & Society 46: 478–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Woodward, Suzanne. 2015. Being both: Gender and indigeneity in two pacific documentary films. Pacific Journalism Review 21: 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Wu, Haorui, and Jason Mackenzie. 2021. Dual-gendered leadership: Gender-inclusive scientific-political public health communication supporting government COVID-19 responses in Atlantic Canada. Healthcare 9: 1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wu, Haorui, and Patricia Stukes. 2020. Improving data process for Indigenous peoples in the U.S. and Canada: A public media-based cross-national comparison. Journal of Indigenous Social Development 9: 53–66. [Google Scholar]
Socsci 12 00145 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram (adapted from Page et al. 2021a).
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram (adapted from Page et al. 2021a).
Socsci 12 00145 g001
Table
Table 1. Keyword Search Terms (* = unlimited number of characters).
Table 1. Keyword Search Terms (* = unlimited number of characters).
Key ConstructSearch InKeywords Search Term
Gender and SexualityTitle, Keywords, AbstractLGBT * OR Queer OR Agender OR Asexual OR Bigender OR Cisgender OR Gay OR “Gender Binary” OR “Gender Identity” OR “Gender Expression” OR “Gender Queer” OR Homosexual OR Intersex OR Lesbian OR MSM OR Pangender OR Pansexual OR Transgender OR Transman OR Transwoman OR Two-Spirit * OR QPOC OR QTPOC OR QUILTBAG OR SOGI * OR TGNC *
Indigenous WorldviewTitle, Keywords, AbstractIndigenous Peoples OR Indigenous Australians OR Aboriginal OR Aborigines OR Aboriginal Peoples OR First Nations OR First Peoples OR First Australians OR Native OR Native American OR Native Hawaiians OR Native Alaskans OR American Indian OR Indian OR Status Indian OR Non-Status Indian OR Treaty Indian OR Amerindian OR Inuit OR Metis OR Torres Strait Islanders OR Australian Aboriginal
Table
Table 2. Commonly Used Terminologies (* = unlimited number of characters).
Table 2. Commonly Used Terminologies (* = unlimited number of characters).
Web of Science and IndigenousWeb of SciencePsycINFOSocial Work AbstractsSociological AbstractsGender Studies Database
LGBT *1783.55%63485.23%42438.56%1576.89%21206.00%48928.86%
Queer4088.15%84436.96%34947.05%1285.62%389311.01%43747.92%
Agender10.02%440.04%190.04%10.04%20.01%70.01%
Asexual3617.21%92557.62%3340.67%30.13%1680.48%1330.24%
Bigender10.02%50.00%40.01%00.00%00.00%40.01%
Cisgender731.46%12771.05%8821.78%100.44%2050.58%2230.40%
Gay72914.55%17,20714.17%14,14528.52%74932.87%714220.20%15,19027.51%
Gender Binary1763.51%44883.70%6081.23%100.44%8892.51%4640.84%
Gender Identity106321.22%18,60315.32%6641.34%1265.53%842423.83%927816.80%
Gender Expression2845.67%13,76711.34%9922.00%120.53%12323.48%5851.06%
Gender Queer1723.43%23961.97%2240.45%120.53%12003.39%2560.46%
Homosexual2204.39%53264.39%33266.71%1476.45%19445.50%27975.07%
Intersex821.64%17861.47%4680.94%50.22%2260.64%4970.90%
Lesbian4138.25%10,7808.88%10,30020.77%61927.16%533115.08%11,77921.33%
MSM2875.73%11,8129.73%36017.26%1034.52%3621.02%5541.00%
Pangender00.00%00.00%00.00%00.00%00.00%00.00%
Pansexual70.14%1060.09%1040.21%30.13%230.07%390.07%
Transgender4549.06%91517.54%652313.15%1868.16%20795.88%39967.24%
Transman80.16%210.02%200.04%00.00%80.02%130.02%
Transwoman160.32%310.03%160.03%00.00%100.03%90.02%
Two-Spirit *661.32%1700.14%1200.24%60.26%540.15%920.17%
QPOC00.00%60.00%50.01%00.00%40.01%10.00%
QTPOC00.00%30.00%20.00%00.00%10.00%10.00%
QUILTBAG00.00%00.00%00.00%00.00%00.00%00.00%
SOGI *60.12%2320.19%350.07%10.04%210.06%110.02%
TGNC *40.08%1340.11%1260.25%10.04%170.05%190.03%
Total5009100.00%121,391100.00%49,591100.00%2279100.00%35,355100.00%55,214100.00%
Table
Table 3. Gender and Sexuality Diverse Terms Used in Reviewed Journal Articles.
Table 3. Gender and Sexuality Diverse Terms Used in Reviewed Journal Articles.
TermJournal Article
Agokwe (Anishinaabe/Ojibwe/Chippewa)(Robinson 2020)
Agowinini (Ojibwe/Chippewa)(Robinson 2020)
Bardaj (Arabic)(Robinson 2020)
Berdache (Native American)(Robinson 2020; Towle and Morgan 2002)
Bi+(Henningham 2021)
Bisexual(Chidiac 2020; Garrett and Barret 2003; Lehavot et al. 2009; Prankumar et al. 2021)
Gay(Ahuja 2017; Adams and Phillips 2009; Chidiac 2020; Estrada 2016; Garrett and Barret 2003; Gilley 2012; Mehra 2016; Prankumar et al. 2021; Renninger 2012; Rodriguez-Dorans 2019; Rzepka 2017; Scudeler 2006)
GLBT(Murib 2018)
GLBTQ(Gilley 2010)
Hijra (India)(Towle and Morgan 2002)
Homosexual/Homosexuality (Fernandes 2016; Gonzalez 2020; Kapur 2000; Neti 2017; Roldugina 2019)
Inini (Ojibwe/Chippewa)(Robinson 2020)
Lesbian(Ahuja 2017; Adams and Phillips 2009; Chidiac 2020; Estrada 2016; Garrett and Barret 2003; Kapur 2000; Lehavot et al. 2009; Prankumar et al. 2021; Renninger 2012)
LGBT(Ung Loh 2018)
LGBTQ(Ejaz and Moscowitz 2020; Ellasante 2021; Moreno 2019)
LGBTQI(Bennett and Gates 2019)
LGBTQ+(Hall 2020)
LGBTQ2(Estrada 2016)
LGBTIQ(Farrell 2016, 2017; Phelan and Oxley 2021)
LGBTIQ+(Soldatic et al. 2021b)
LGBTIQA+(Henningham 2021)
LGBTIQ(SB)+(Phelan and Oxley 2021)
LGBTTQ(Balestrery 2012)
LGBT2SQ+(Moreno 2019)
Lhamana (A:shwi/Zuni)(Robinson 2020)
Mahuwahine (Native Hawaiian)(Ellingson and Odo 2008)
Mapuche Machi (Chile)(Bacigalupo 2009)
Nadleehi/na’dleehi’ (Navajo)(Robinson 2020; Walters 2019)
Non-Binary Gender(Robinson 2020)
Okwe (Ojibwe/Chippewa)(Robinson 2020)
QPOC(Farrell 2016)
Queer(Catungal 2017; Day 2020; Ellis 2015; Farrell 2016; Gonzalez 2020; Gopinath 2000; Hall 2020; Hanson 2018; Henningham 2021; Moreno 2019; Murib 2018; Osorio 2020; Pauwels 2020; Phelan and Oxley 2021; Prankumar et al. 2021; Preston 2020; Quezada 2019; Rzepka 2017; Spurlin 2010; Tandon 2019; Walters 2019; Waugh 2001)
Sambia (Papua New Guinea)(Towle and Morgan 2002)
Suprabinary Genders(Robinson 2020)
Third Gender(Robinson 2020; Towle and Morgan 2002)
Transgender(Angelino et al. 2020a, 2020b; Benson 2020; Chidiac 2020; Da Silva 2019; Day 2020; Ellingson and Odo 2008; Farrell 2016; House 2016; Moran 2017; O’Brien 2015; Shah et al. 2019; Sullivan 2018; Sullivan and Day 2019; Towle and Morgan 2002; Ung Loh 2018; Woodward 2015)
2SLGBTQ(Carrier et al. 2020)
2SQ(Aikau 2021)
Two-Spirit(Adams and Phillips 2009; Angelino et al. 2020a, 2020b; Carrier et al. 2020; Ellasante 2021; Garrett and Barret 2003; Gilley 2010; Hall 2020; Hemmila 2016; House 2016; Lehavot et al. 2009; Moreno 2019; Robinson 2020)
Wintke/winkte/Wi’i’nkte (Lakhota. Dakota, or Sioux)(Robinson 2020)
Xanith (Arabia)(Towle and Morgan 2002)
Table
Table 4. Indigenous Identified Geographic Regions and Countries.
Table 4. Indigenous Identified Geographic Regions and Countries.
Geographic Region or CountryJournal Article
Australia(Bennett and Gates 2019; Bulbeck 2010; Day 2020; Farrell 2016, 2017; Henningham 2021; Phelan and Oxley 2021; Soldatic et al. 2021b; Sullivan 2018; Sullivan and Day 2019)
Brazil(Da Silva 2019; Fernandes 2016)
Britain(Ellis 2015)
Canada(Carrier et al. 2020; Catungal 2017; Hall 2020; Hanson 2018; Moreno 2019; Preston 2020; Robinson 2020; Scudeler 2006; Walley 2018)
Chile(Bacigalupo 2009)
China(Bulbeck 2010; Itakura 2008)
Columbia(O’Brien 2015)
Guatemala(Rasch 2020)
Hawaii (Aikau 2021; Ellingson and Odo 2008; Osorio 2020; Woodward 2015)
India(Ahuja 2017; Bulbeck 2010; Chanda 2018; Ejaz and Moscowitz 2020; Gopinath 2000; Hapke and Ayyankeril 2018; Kapur 2000; Medhi 2016; Maheshwari 2019; Neti 2017; Renninger 2012; Shah et al. 2019; Tandon 2019; Ung Loh 2018; Waugh 2001)
Japan(Bulbeck 2010)
Lebanon(Chidiac 2020)
Malaysia(Devasahayam 2005)
Malta(Rodriguez-Dorans 2019)
Mexico(Gonzalez 2020; Quezada 2019)
Middle East(Chidiac 2020)
Mozambique(Trovao and Araujo 2020)
New Zealand(Woodward 2015)
North Africa (Chidiac 2020)
Panama(Colin 2013)
Portugal (Trovao 2016)
Russia(Roldugina 2019)
Singapore(Prankumar et al. 2021)
South Africa(Carrim 2016; Dederen 2011; Pauwels 2020; Spurlin 2010)
Turkey (Dadabhoy 2014)
United States(Adams and Phillips 2009; Angelino et al. 2020a, 2020b; Balestrery 2012; Benson 2020; Ellasante 2021; Estrada 2016; Fernandes 2016; Garrett and Barret 2003; Gilley 2010, 2012; Hemmila 2016; Herrick 2018; Hoffman et al. 2021; House 2016; Kurien 1999; Lehavot et al. 2009; Manohar 2008; Mehra 2016; Moran 2017; Murib 2018; Quezada 2019; Rzepka 2017; Schweighofer 2018; Towle and Morgan 2002; Tummala-Narra et al. 2017; Walters 2019; Wexler et al. 2014)
Table
Table 5. Indigenous Identified Populations.
Table 5. Indigenous Identified Populations.
PopulationJournal Article
A:shwi/Zuni(Robinson 2020)
Aboriginal (Phelan and Oxley 2021)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander(Day 2020; Farrell 2017; Phelan and Oxley 2021; Soldatic et al. 2021b)
Aboriginal Australian (Bennett and Gates 2019; Farrell 2016; Sullivan 2018)
African Indigenous (Pauwels 2020; Spurlin 2010)
Afro-Brazilian(Da Silva 2019)
Alaska Native(Wexler et al. 2014)
American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)(Angelino et al. 2020a, 2020b; Balestrery 2012; Lehavot et al. 2009)
American Indian (Gilley 2010, 2012; Herrick 2018; Hoffman et al. 2021)
Anishinaabe(Robinson 2020)
Asian-Canadian(Catungal 2017)
Asian-Indian(Mehra 2016; Tummala-Narra et al. 2017)
Australian First Nations(Soldatic et al. 2021b)
Black(Ellis 2015)
Cape Verdean and Indo-Mozambican Migrants(Trovao 2016)
Cherokee(Hoffman et al. 2021)
Chippewa(Robinson 2020)
Choctaw(Rzepka 2017)
Dine/Navajo(House 2016; Robinson 2020; Walters 2019)
Embera Indigenous Women (Colin 2013)
First Nations(Phelan and Oxley 2021)
Hindi(Gopinath 2000)
Hindu Indian(Kurien 1999)
Hinduvta (Ung Loh 2018)
Indian (India)(Ahuja 2017; Ejaz and Moscowitz 2020; Kapur 2000; Manohar 2008; Maheshwari 2019; Prankumar et al. 2021; Renninger 2012; Shah et al. 2019; Tandon 2019; Waugh 2001)
Indigenous(Benson 2020; Day 2020; Carrier et al. 2020; Ellasante 2021; Gonzalez 2020; Hall 2020; Hanson 2018; Moran 2017; Moreno 2019; Phelan and Oxley 2021; Preston 2020; Robinson 2020; Rodriguez-Dorans 2019; Spurlin 2010; Sullivan and Day 2019)
Indigenous American(Hemmila 2016)
Indigenous Australian (Henningham 2021)
Indigenous Women(Rasch 2020)
Inuit/Iqaluit (Preston 2020; Walley 2018)
Inupiaq(Wexler et al. 2014)
Jewish(Scudeler 2006)
Machi(Bacigalupo 2009)
Maori(Woodward 2015)
Metis(Scudeler 2006)
Mayan(Rasch 2020)
Muslim(Dadabhoy 2014)
Native(Estrada 2016; Hanson 2018; Murib 2018; O’Brien 2015; Towle and Morgan 2002)
Native American (Adams and Phillips 2009; Estrada 2016; Garrett and Barret 2003; Rzepka 2017)
Native Hawaiian (Ellingson and Odo 2008; Osorio 2020)
Northeast Indian (Medhi 2016)
Ojibwe (Estrada 2016; Robinson 2020)
South Asian(Mehra 2016; Renninger 2012)
Southeast Asian(Prankumar et al. 2021)
South Indian Hindu(Devasahayam 2005)
South Indian Muslim(Hapke and Ayyankeril 2018)
Venda(Dederen 2011)
West Indian(Ellis 2015)
Table
Table 6. Themes.
Table 6. Themes.
ThemeGeographic Region or CountryPopulationGender and Sexuality Diverse Term
Culture and ethnic identity as social structures that influence attitudes, values and beliefs about gender and sexuality identity and performativityAustralia
Canada
China
Guatemala
Hawaii
India
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
Mozambique
Panama
Portugal
Turkey
United States
Russia
Singapore
South Africa		American Indian
African Indigenous
Asian-Canadian
Asian-Indian
Cape Verdean
Embera Indigenous Woman
Hindi
Hinduvta
Hindu Indian
Indian (India)
Indigenous
Indo-Mozambican
Mayan
Muslim
South Asian
South Indian Hindu
South Indian Muslim
South African
Southeast Asian
Venda
2SQ
Bi-Sexual
Gay
Homosexual/Homosexuality
Queer
Lesbian
LGBT
LGBTQ
Transgender
Indigenous values, beliefs, and attitudes regarding gender and sexuality diversityBrazil
Canada
Chile
Columbia
Guatemala
Hawaii
New Zealand
United States		A:shwi/Zuni
Alaska Native
American Indian
Anishinaabe
Cherokee
Chippewa
Choctaw
Dine/Navajo
Indigenous
Inuit/Iqaluit
Inupiaq
Machi
Māori
Mayan
Native
Native American
Native Hawaiian
Ojibwe		2SLGBTQ
Agokwe
Agowinini
Bardaj
Berdache
Bi-Sexual
Gay
Homosexual/Homosexuality
Inini
Lesbian
Lhamana
Mahuwahine
Mapuche Machi
Nadleehi/na’dleehi’
Non-Binary Gender
Okwe
Queer
Suprabinary Genders
Third Gender
Transgender
Two-Spirit
Wintke/winkte/Wi’i’nkte
Indigenous and other acts of activism as resistance to the oppression of gender and sexuality diversityAustralia
Brazil
Canada
Hawaii
India
New Zealand
South Africa
United States		A:shwi/Zuni
Aboriginal
Aboriginal Australian
African Indigenous
Afro-Brazilian
American Indian
Anishinaabe
Asian-Indian
Chippewa
Dine/Navajo
Hinduvta
Indian (India)
Indigenous
Indigenous Australian
Inuit/Iqaluit
Māori
Native
Native American
Native Hawaiian
Northeast Indian
Ojibwe
South Asian
Torres Strait Islander		2SQ
Agokwe
Agowinini
Bardaj
Berdache
Bi+
Bi-Sexual
Gay
GLBT
GLBTQ
Hijra
Inini
Lesbian
LGBT
LGBTIQ
LGBTQ
LGBTQ2
LGBTIQA+
LGBTQI
LGBT2SQ+
Lhamana
Mahuwahine
Nadleehi/na’dleehi’
Non-Binary Gender
Okwe
QPOC
Queer
Sambia
Suprabinary Genders
Third Gender
Transgender
Two-Spirit
Wintke/winkte/Wi’i’nkte
Xanith
Colonialism’s impact on the conception, construction and experience of gender and sexualityAustralia
Brazil
Britain
Canada
Chile
Hawaii
India
Malta
Mexico
Mozambique
New Zealand
South Africa
United States		A:shwi/Zuni
Aboriginal
Aboriginal Australian
African Indigenous
Afro-Brazilian
American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)
Anishinaabe
Black
Chippewa
Dine/Navajo
Indigenous
Indigenous Australian
Inuit/Iqaluit
Jewish
Machi
Māori
Metis
Native Hawaiian
Ojibwe
Torres Strait Islander
West Indian		2SQ
Agokwe
Agowinini
Bardaj
Berdache
Bi+
Bi-Sexual
Gay
Homosexual/Homosexuality
Inini
Lhamana
Lesbian
LGBTQ
LGBTIQA+
LGBTTQ
LGBT2SQ+
LGBTQ+
Mahuwahine
Mapuche Machi
Nadleehi/na’dleehi’
Non-Binary Gender
Okwe
Queer
Suprabinary Genders
Third Gender
Transgender
Two-Spirit
Wintke/winkte/Wi’i’nkte
Developments in the understanding of the health care needs and supports of Indigenous and gender and sexuality diverse populationsAustralia
India
Lebanon
Middle East
North Africa
United States		Aboriginal
American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)
Asian-Indian
Australian First Nations
Indian (India)
First Nations
Indigenous
Indigenous Australian
South Asian
Torres Strait Islander		Bi+
Bi-Sexual
Gay
Lesbian
LGBTIQ
LGBTIQ+
LGBTIQA+
LGBTIQ(SB)+
Transgender
Two-Spirit
Queer
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fox, M.J.; Wu, H. Terminology and Language Used in Indigenous-Specific Gender and Sexuality Diversity Studies: A Systematic Review. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030145

AMA Style

Fox MJ, Wu H. Terminology and Language Used in Indigenous-Specific Gender and Sexuality Diversity Studies: A Systematic Review. Social Sciences. 2023; 12(3):145. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030145

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fox, Michael J., and Haorui Wu. 2023. "Terminology and Language Used in Indigenous-Specific Gender and Sexuality Diversity Studies: A Systematic Review" Social Sciences 12, no. 3: 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030145

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop