Question: I know the participants said they struggled with defining/elaborating but there was a second interviewer there to ask follow up questions and I wish they did. I can't help but wonder about the details of the "weird/awkward vibe". Was it body language, like the physician not making eye contact, not facing or sitting down next to the patient, or too much time on the computer? Was it the tone and if it was paternalistic, too formal and rigid like robotic or reading off a script, or dismissive? I just feel like this doesn't feel very constructive and any concrete detail would help a lot.

Summary: Health disparities affecting numerous marginalized populations have always been an issue in healthcare. The concurrent tragedies of the COVID-19 pandemic and the well documented violent death of George Floyd during a time of unprecedented ability to vastly disseminate information via the Internet, allowed for often ignored voices and dismissed experiences to take the spotlight. There was a lot of social momentum to promote education and policy changes, and this paper was able to capitalize off that moment.

Connect: I'm actually surprised this information wasn't collected as this paper seems to be quite comprehensive with its emphasis on both BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities, and covers a large basis of other forms of discrimination as seen in the previous sentence (gave participants a chance to describe the cause of discrimination to be beyond presumed ethnicity/race/sexuality/gender by including religion/physical build/education/income. It's clear to me that the researchers are very well aware of the concept of intersectionality so that is why I am surprised that they didn't inquire about insurance coverage, as it was covered in great detail by multiple videos in the LGBTQIA+ Health Disparities 101 module that a disproportionate amount of queer individuals lack access to healthcare insurance and/or coverage because of factors directly relating to their marginalized identity.

Connect: I was thinking that in our doctoring labs, neutral language was also brought up to be used when talking to any patient. I think using these neutral and inclusive terms are both professional and help with making conversations about our bodies more normalized. I also learned recently rather than asking about smoking history, I could also just ask if a patient has a history of consuming tobacco products because it includes people who chew tobacco rather than smoke cigarettes. I hadn't thought of that before and I hope to learn about other ways to make my questions and clinical reasoning more inclusive for all patient demographics moving forward.

Question: This person is sharing a sentiment that I know is felt among many queer people, that it feels that physicians ask invasive questions that bear no relevance to the patient's healthcare. I can sympathize with this and understand why a queer patient might feel this way upon being asked questions like these, but I can't help but think after my time in medical school that these are important questions to ask any patient. So my question is: Is it actually medically necessary to ask this of a patient who is technically capable of getting pregnant even when given the patient history, that there is no way of them getting pregnant? Or if it is medically relevant, is it just best practice to preface these social history questions with statements like "I ask all of my patients this and I want to get a better understanding of your health. If you feel uncomfortable at any given point, please let me know and we can stop at any time". Is there more that can be said to make patients feel more comfortable about these invasive questions?

Summarize: To promote dignity and respect of queer, and all, patients, physicians should strive towards collaboration and transparency with their patients. It is worth taking the time to explain things and listen so that any patient feels more understood and appreciated.