{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022806004618937645, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01905311778290993, 'mean_word_length': 5.754385964912281, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Call Us by Our Name(s): Shifting Representations of the Transgender Community in Classificatory Practice

The linguistic shifts in terms used for self-representation and collective representation by the transgender community are a compelling exemplification of subject-based classification schemes’ shortcomings. These shortcomings become readily apparent in digital environments which enable user-generated tagging of content; on these platforms, members of the transgender community are able to maintain their preferred selfreferential terms to establish the subject(s) of their work. In using creator-generated tags as a source for contemporary terminology to be used in subject-based classification schemes, I will build upon previous work by surveying self-referential terminology generated by creators of original works about the transgender community. By comparing the terminology used in hashtags on posts centered on the transgender community on Instagram with the terminology present in the Library of Congress’ subclass heading for HQ77.7—HQ77.95 and the Library of Congress’ available subject headings relating to gender variance, I will examine the shifts in rhetorical representation of materials focused on the transgender community over time, using this as justification for additional documentation regarding global changes made to classification schemes and indexing languages into online catalog records. 1.0 Introduction The Library of Congress Classification Scheme is the bibliographic classification scheme developed by the Library of Congress. Its primary sites of implementation are libraries within the United States of America, and it is also implemented in numerous libraries within and outside the United States (Olson 2000, 54). The flaws built into LCC have been well-documented throughout the 20th century—particularly as these flaws relate to the scheme’s representation of marginalized communities (Adler 2017, 9-10, 44; Fox 2016, 375; Olson 2000, 54; Olson 2001, 541). The transgender community is one of many groups that has been represented within LCC by terminology which is perceived by the community as outdated and pejorative (Roberto 2011, 57). LCC subclass HQ77.7—HQ77.95 is where materials about the transgender community are classified using the term “transsexualism,” which is considered to be an outdated—and often offensive—term by many transgender individuals. The terms used to name LCC classes and subclasses are meant to reflect the language used by relevant discourse communities; however, despite terminological shifts within queer studies and other fields, which have been catalyzed by the transgender community’s increased political and cultural visibility, “transsexualism” continues to be a term used within LCC. I argue that the HQ77.7—HQ77.95 subclass heading is no longer reflective of the terminology used by transgender individuals during acts of self-representation, using hashtags on Instagram as a way to measure the prevalence of particular terminology within the LGBTQ community when creating and sharing content by and about transgender individuals. I also argue for the addition of version control in publicfacing catalog records as a means for documenting large-scale edits made to knowledge organization infrastructures, so as to increase transparency and facilitate institutional accountability in classificatory and cataloguing practices. © Ergon ein Verlag in der Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft