News
LGBTI+ People and Public Policies
Professor Iscte Sociology and Public Policy
Researcher CIES-Iscte
The LGBTI+ community itself is very diverse, and one of the things we were interested in understanding was which groups are most discriminated against within the acronym itself.
How does Iscte get involved in a nationwide study on the needs and discriminations in the LGBTI+ community?
CIES-Iscte competed and won a tender launched by the Commission for Citizenship and Gender Equality (CIG) that aimed to carry out this specific study, provided for in the National Action Plan to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (PAOIEC). This plan is part of the National Strategy for Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination and entered into force in 2018. One of the objectives was to collect information to support a new action plan within the scope of public policies. That is why, in the study (available on the IGC website), there is a chapter with recommendations for promoting equality and non-discrimination in the light of the ICEC.
In terms of methodologies, how was the study developed?
To survey the discrimination and needs of LGBTI+ people (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and with other sexual orientations and non-normative gender identities), we opted for a qualitative methodology through the consultation of representative entities and/or those who work with this population. Comprehensively, we wanted to have national, regional or local entities. Also, from an intersectional perspective, entities that not being specifically directed to work with this population include it in their intervention, for example, which work with the migrant population, homeless population, or sex workers. We promoted four focus groups with these entities. We conducted interviews with representatives of LGBTI+ associations that are part of the national support network for victims of domestic violence: ILGA Portugal, Associação Ponto i and Casa Qui.
And why these three entities?
They are the ones that have a more institutionalised action to support LGBTI+ people incorporated into public policies. We also start from the data of these associations to systematise and analyse the data of the services provided by these three associations in a more quantitative component. Naturally, taking care of all ethical and confidentiality issues, these associations have provided us anonymised access to the resource data to work on them: who uses these associations, their needs, and what discrimination they report. This corresponded to a more quantitative survey within the mapping of discrimination.
Another objective of the study was to discuss, in the light of national and EU legislation, the issue of homophobic, transphobic and interphobic hate crimes.
One of the characteristics of our reality is the high level of underreporting. We know that discrimination exists and is documented in these service data from the associations. Still, it did not reach the formal complaint, and we wanted to know why.
Is publicly acknowledging this discrimination and crime by the authorities complex, and has it created obstacles to the investigation?
It is complex because many complaints are made to the associations. However, they are still a tiny part of the discrimination that happens and far fewer advance to formal denunciation. Even in the formal complaint, it is impossible to identify the motivation because our legislation also needs an independent figure for hate crimes motivated by the OIEC issues. We collaborated with entities such as the CIG itself, the Attorney General's Office (PGR), and the security forces to provide data and processes of the complaints.
We analysed the reports by keywords to see which could indicate hate crimes motivated by the OIEC. The results revealed very few of them, and it is challenging to understand if this is the motivation.
Did the research team also mobilise students?
The study was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of sociology, psychology, and social work. It included senior and junior researchers and master's and doctoral students. It ran from August 2021 to March 2022.
Security forces and social protection services were also called contexts of discrimination.
What should be highlighted in terms of the recommendations produced in this work?
We were concerned with detailing concrete measures possible to operationalise, which was recognised when the teacher released the study results.
We map sectoral and cross-cutting needs. Through content analysis, we could understand in the discourse of the participants which were the most referred contexts, either in terms of discrimination or in need of measures. Discrimination and the need for public policy intervention were denounced in almost all contexts. In the first place, the health sector continues to stand out as the one in which there is great discrimination against this type of population, not exclusively, but mainly on behalf of trans people, since a significant part of them need to resort to health services during their transition process. These subjects still need to be included in the curricula of health courses, so it remains to obtain knowledge on their initiative. Discrimination often stems from a lack of knowledge, and others stem from the prejudice of health professionals.
In sectoral terms, what are the other relevant contexts of discrimination?
In addition to health, education, housing, and employment (in access and the workplace). It should be noted that the security forces and the social protection services were also mentioned as contexts of discrimination. The case of the security forces is severe because they are the entities to whom people who feel discriminated against will have to turn. If there is also discrimination, people either do not resort to them even when needed, or they will be doubly discriminated against instead of being protected.
Social protection structures, such as temporary reception centres and residential structures, were also very evident because the study was conducted in the aftermath of the pandemic. One of the conclusions of the study is that the pandemic crisis has accentuated discrimination against LGBTI+ people.
How?
It has put families under one roof, 24 hours a day. Especially in the younger population, this situation provided the perception or confirmation that one was facing an LGBTI+ family member, whether this was revealed or perceived. Sadly, many families have been driven out of their homes. In this situation, reception centres and residential structures, "shelters for victims of violence," would be vital support. But this time of crisis has also amplified what was already known: not only that these structures are insufficient for the demand, but that they are not prepared, for example, to welcome a trans person or a young woman, because they receive people according to the sex assigned at birth.
It is also important to mention that the study also revealed that one of the primary contexts of discrimination against the LGBTI+ population is the family itself. The family is essential for the structuring and life trajectory of these people and for all people. The data from the consultations indicated that, contrary to what happens for the general population, the central violence reported in the LGBTI+ population is parental. This particularity must be considered in public policies.
What are your recommendations? Awareness-raising campaigns? Training?
We need to move from one-off awareness-raising and training actions to introducing these subjects into the curricula of introductory training courses, not only in health but also in training in social work, teachers, etc. Thus, it will not depend on personal interest in knowing more; it will be professional and universal training.
The way to structurally combat this discrimination is to include OIEC issues in all education curricula and pedagogical practices. It is not just a matter of having subjects that address these issues. Still, including diversity and, in this case, diversity of gender, identities and sex characteristics in the subjects taught. For example, it continues to be communicated in the natural sciences and biology that there are only two types of bodies – males and females – leaving out intersex bodies. And we already know that there are as many intersex people as there are red-haired people.
Let me give you another example: in a textbook, we can illustrate a family of the same sex when a family is mentioned.
Is there a need for censuses to provide a more detailed understanding of the reality of this population?
One of the cross-cutting recommendations concerns having information that will allow us to sustain the intervention. One recommendation is to work on the possibility of introducing the variables of sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics in the new censuses, as is happening, for example, in the United Kingdom.
We have proposed other cross-cutting measures related to public services, adapting their communication and forms to the reality of these people.
I will give you one more example: the forms where it says "mother's name" and "father's name" are out of step with reality. Today, we have families with two mothers or two fathers, and even though they have legal recognition, this is often private from administrative practices. Gender identity issues also need to be addressed, including the administrative transposition of the legally acquired right of a person to be addressed by the name with which he or she identifies, regardless of the legal name. Another recommendation is to strengthen the territorialisation of public policies for the ICEE through municipal plans to combat discrimination based on the ICEE.
Is there also a need for more significant intervention at the local level?
If there is a gap between the written and lived laws, one way to narrow it is to act on the side of public policies, including municipal and inter-municipal. That is, not only to think about what the central state can do for the necessary change but also what the municipalities, which are closer to the population, can do. There was the example of the city of Lisbon, which, in the previous mandate, was a pioneer with a Plan specifically for LGBTI+ issues. Other good practices exist, such as the municipality of Matosinhos, which supports the PlanoIi Association, which intervenes in the northern area. Another significant measure is to have a specialised service structure for these people in each district through an NGO or the...
And in terms of the most discriminated groups?
At the base of discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics is the idea that humanity is divided into two sexes/types of bodies, which give rise to two gender identities and sexual attractions to the "opposite sex." This is a simplistic understanding of humanity that leaves many people out and should be combated. Humanity is much more diverse than this. The LGBTI+ community itself is very diverse, and one of the things we wanted to understand was which groups are most discriminated against within the acronym.
It was concluded that trans people, and especially trans women, are the greatest victims of discrimination because they combine cisgenderism (the idea that humanity is entirely cisgender, meaning there is alignment between the sex assigned at birth and gender identity) and sexism (discrimination of the feminine). And if, in addition to being a trans woman, we add, for example, being an immigrant, a sex worker, homeless, HIV-positive, or not having legal status, the discrimination will be exponential and take on specific contours, with consequences in terms of needs.
Is it necessary to continue this work?
The expectation for these recommendations would be their inclusion in a new National Plan to Combat Discrimination based on OIEC. The new plan has just been released, and what is perceived is that some measures have been included, others not. The decision to implement the recommendations is always a political one. For us, researchers, it is our role to collect information, process it, systematise it, draw conclusions, and then make recommendations that consider the main conclusions. But one of the study's main conclusions is that there is a significant gap in Portuguese society between the rights recognised in law and people's reality. Portugal always ranks well in rights rankings, but when we survey the LGBTI+ population, Portugal doesn't fare as well.
