Overview

The language we use around gender, identity, orientation, and related concepts is rapidly evolving. These are sensitive and personal topics, around which there are strong feelings — and different, strongly felt opinions around language usage, even among thoughtful, well-meaning people.

For scholarship programs that serve the LGBTQ+ community, or those programs that simply want to ensure the LGBTQ+ community is well-represented in the students they support, this can present a challenge. When should a scholarship program ask for LGBTQ+ information? How does an application designer label the input fields when the label itself could cause offense?

This article suggests some general principles and provides a few specific examples of application form structure that adhere to the principles. These principles were collected from community input, academic studies, and feedback from students in the LGBTQ+ community using application systems designed by NSPA Members. With an evolving and sensitive topic like this, we’re sure these usage guidelines will change. But, the following represents our latest recommendations.

General Principles

Consider the following general principles when designing an application not specifically designed to serve the LGBTQ+ community:

• Don’t ask for gender detail or LGBTQ+ specifics unless the information will be used. Many programs require some form of gender information. If the specifics are not relevant to your program or program goals, consider not asking.

• Define “Gender” as “Gender assigned at birth.” Some programs and applications only accept a binary “Male” or “Female” option. Consider defining that choice as the gender the applicant was assigned at birth. This is as opposed to “current gender” or “current biological sex,” both of which establish a binary choice in which that some LGBTQ+ scholars may not find themselves.

• Consider a “Prefer not to answer” choice. Or make the gender field optional.

• Consider a “Prefer to self-identify” option with an open-text field. For programs with an interest in serving the LGBTQ+ community, but where programs are not specifically targeted at a specific subpopulation, this is a useful option.

• Do not label an open-text field collecting identity or LGBTQ+ information “Other.” The concept of “other-ness” has explicitly negative connotations in the LGBTQ+ community in a way different from, say, whether one participated in baseball, basketball, bowling, or an “other” sport beginning with the letter “B.”

What if your program is designed to serve the LGBTQ+ community — or a subpopulation within that community. If so, you probably don’t need our advice. But, for those starting a new program may find the following usage guidelines helpful:

• When asking applicants to select from a list of LGBTQ+ subpopulations, consider only listing the specific subpopulations you serve in the list. Where practical and appropriate, add a “Prefer to self-identify” option with an open-text field.

• Consider your field labels carefully. For example, a field labeled “Gender” would typically not include an option for LGBTQ+ populations such as “Bisexual,” which is typically considered an “Orientation.” If your application is intended to serve many subpopulations, consider simply using LGBTQ+ as a field label. Since the subpopulations associated with the LGBTQ+ acronym are not mutually exclusive, you would likely need to allow for multiple selections.

One final general principle:

• Don’t take offense at applicants taking offense with your application. Well-meaning practitioners have reported that, despite their best efforts, scholars have provided strongly worded negative feedback about how LGBTQ+ information was represented in an application. Occasionally, feedback from one scholar will directly contradict feedback from another. That’s just the way it is with evolving language about topics with an emotional component. Consider the feedback, and use it to inform the next version of your application.

Application Examples

Option 1. Minimalist

• Gender M/F, define gender as “assigned at birth”

Option 2. Minimalist with Options

• Gender M/F, Prefer to Self-Identify

Option 3. General Approach to Inclusivity

• Gender M/F, LGBTQ+ options + self-identify

Option 4. Specific Audiences

• LGBTQ+, plus self-identify, plus “description”

References

• Articles, Wikipedia, etc.

Audiences: Program Staff, Solution Designers
Topic Areas: Scholarship Application, UI/UX