This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
My current role is I'm, executive director of the National LGBT Health Alliance. That's a fairly new peak body in Australia that is basically an umbrella organisation for individuals and organisations who work in a whole lot of different ways to improve, promote the health and well-being of lesbian, gay bisexual trends into sex and a whole lot of other sexuality, sex and gender diverse people. Um, so in that role, it's about working [00:00:30] with a very diverse individuals, diverse organisations in a very complex environment. And part of the challenge of that is, of course, that the interests needs experiences of different parts of our multifaceted communities. Um are often not acknowledged in the certainly in the organised work that happens around LGBTI rights, even if in Australia at the moment we're using the acronym LGBTI. [00:01:00] But a lot of the work the advocacy that is done in that area is has tended to come from the context of people best resourced so often issues of of difference and of the different needs and of the different resources available to people to both advocate for their needs but also to, um, claim them and are, um, [00:01:30] vary a lot and I guess what I was talking about in my presentation was I was starting off with the word intersectionality because it's become very fashionable. Um, and I think it's starting to be used a lot as a term to address the interrelations between different forms of difference. I think we've become relatively familiar with this idea that people have multiple identities. Um, but we often don't think [00:02:00] very much further than that about or what does that mean? And there's often still this additive, um, approach of Well, you're you're either gay or you're a migrant or whatever. And if you're thinking in multiple terms, then maybe you can be a couple of things at once. Maybe you can be a gay migrant or a lesbian indigenous person or something like that, but it's still hard for us to conceptualise. Well, what does that mean? And to think [00:02:30] beyond it, being like an addition of Oh, you've got one strand of identity and then you've got another and you add that and hey, if you've got a couple of strands that are marginalised identities, hey, you must be extra unhappy because you've got added layers of potential. At least discrimination and that it's actually a lot more complex than that. And the term Intersectionality is is a trying, I guess, to understand what those connections mean [00:03:00] and how that plays out. The point I was trying to get across was that particularly because it's become a bit fashionable. It's often being used in a quite unreflective way. So what's often being left out of the equation is the power and balances between different social groups and the different. Yeah, I have a sociologist background. So the social capital associated with different identities and that's quite concrete, You know what sort [00:03:30] of resources? If I'm middle class, I have access to education that has a lot of implications of what other types of things I can access. I have, um, access to dominant social norms of walk out. You know, simple stuff like etiquette. You know what, what responses do people have to me on the basis of etiquette? Um, so it's a whole range of things, from access to money through to more diffuse resources or power access, and that each individual [00:04:00] is positioned somewhere in the intersection between an interplay of a whole lot of different social categories. and each of those categories is not a sort of an either or and it's not associated with, Oh, you have power or you don't. It's actually far more complex than that, and they're all continuum, and they're all axes of power. So what I think is useful in talking about Intersectionality is to think of it as [00:04:30] a matrix or a whole lot of overlapping groups with associated sort of resources attached to them. Power attached to them and the individual is positioned at where they interplay. So it's not as simple as adding things up, you know? Hey, as a lesbian, I've got less power here, but more power because I'm white and and that it's actually about Well, how does my skin colour mediate my experience of being a lesbian? Um, a lot of people are talking [00:05:00] at this conference around identity and being very clear that that's not as simple as, oh, here's the Maori part of me. And here's the gay, lesbian or trans part of me. It's actually a very specific interplay that has a really specific um, implications for how I understand myself what my identity means to me. The resources available to me and how I live my life. So it's intersectionality is about trying to conceptualise [00:05:30] that and think through the implications. And ultimately, for me, it comes down to people are complicated. People have access to power in relation to various parts of their experiences in society, and there are parts of their identity where they're more likely to have less resources. But it's actually more an interplay of how those different axis, um, work together [00:06:00] that gives you access to certain types of resources and certain needs and gaps in others. So to advocate for equity on a sort of societal level or on an individual level in terms of social service provision or whatever or even our own individual rights, we actually need to be taking that complexity into account, because otherwise we're kind of missing the point. We're certainly not gonna create sustained social change and often what we're doing. A lot of LGBTI advocacy is often come [00:06:30] from a position of Oh, we are disempowered due to being gay or being lesbian or being Trans, and I note that you can be both trans and gay or lesbian. They are lumped together often as though they're sort of separate, but they interconnect, too. Um, and by doing so, ignore all those other threads, all those other where within that pool [00:07:00] of LGBTI people, some of us have more power than others. There's a whole complexity of experiences, resources, et cetera, And if we want to move forward around sexual orientation issues or gender identity or sex identity issues in an authentic way that benefits everybody, we actually need to take that complexity into account, because otherwise we're reproducing some of the norms of dominance and the assumptions. And generally [00:07:30] I mean very simplistically. What that means is, you know, white middle class urban perspectives are being reproduced and intentionally or not, excluding a vast number of other people who really, theoretically at least fit under that umbrella. So to move forward as a movement, we need to take that complexity into account. To be able to provide good services, we need to take those into account to be able to advocate for change, to empower ourselves. [00:08:00] And that means both working on an empowerment framework but also on a power sharing framework, acknowledging where we do have power and using it very constructively for social change, I think it was a very good point. You made, uh, in another session where you were talking about. It's very easy to say LGBTI in a title, but to actually have that consultation and collaboration is very hard. Oh, absolutely. And I think it's hard both conceptually, because we're used to sort of this binary [00:08:30] model of Oh, you're this or you're that and life is simple and all black and white, and that's part of Western ways of thinking. But it's also hard because, hey, we've all got experiences with each other and the experiences of those population groups that have tended to be more marginalised, um, in particular trends and intersex people. But I'd also say by people, because I haven't heard anyone talking at this conference so far about buy issues, um, tend to be marginalised. So where there's been experiences, it's often meant [00:09:00] that it's been a token sort of an acronym of inclusion. But, um, people have not had their issues being addressed. They've often come on board in solidarity for issues. They're not primarily theirs. Um, you know, HIV is a great example. But when it's about issues that are primarily around gender identity, for example, like identity documentation. Then it's sort of a oh, but that's not really an issue for us. And it's [00:09:30] sort of Oh, well, maybe one day when we have time. Well, that's your issue. So I guess you know, the point I was trying to make is, if we are going to use those types of collective acronyms or work collectively, then it is about taking very seriously issues of collaboration and consultation and not just pretending. We're this nice, harmonious, whole. And we're all equal. And we all love each other because actually, we oppress each other too, because we have a whole, very complex of identities and belongings. [00:10:00] That was a very, um, interesting slide you put up, which was just simply a very large M. Well, what looked like an M. Can you can you just describe that? It's hard to describe because it's such a visual thing. Um, what I did was I put up an M what looked initially at least like an M on the screen and asked people what they see and people see an M. Um, and then I showed with an arrow what perspective that was being seen from. And then I used other arrows to look at that same figure [00:10:30] from other perspectives, and this is two dimensional, so it's a bit simplistic. It would be more fun to do it 3D, um, and ask people what they see. And it actually takes quite a shift of, uh, trying to work out. What would you see if you sort of moved around there? And, of course, what people were seeing was something quite different. If you look from the top, so to say, you'd be seeing a W and the key message is that where people are positioned determines what their experience of reality is, what they're seeing, [00:11:00] what they're perceiving, what their experiences are, what resources are available to them. And we're also used to seeing the world from our position that it's often quite hard to grasp. But there are. Most people, in fact, are standing in a different place to us because the threads that make up their identities, their lives and their experiences position them differently to me, and thus their perception of the world will be different. And I need to [00:11:30] grasp that basic fact if I'm actually going to engage with them effectively, and that applies to everybody. And I very much like that point that you said where, um yes to acknowledge that there are other points of view, but you don't necessarily need to understand those points of view or even to agree with them. You know, part of that complexity is that people have very different interests, needs and, um, positions. And I don't have to agree with somebody on every point in [00:12:00] order to be able to work with them in coalition around our common interests or out of solidarity around issues that are not primarily mine. Um, but yeah, no, I think often in some of the sort of training or learning and development approaches, working around to combat homophobia and transphobia, I think we often don't move past the empathy phase, and empathy is well and good, and it's a real skill. But we can't always feel empathy, and we [00:12:30] certainly can't understand the reality of people necessarily, and that shouldn't be the pre requisite to working effectively with them. So what I do need to understand is that there are limits of what I can understand is is really the the key skill I guess so. This conference What? What is the biggest thing that that you hope to take away from this conference? Um, I guess a mix of three things, Um, affirmation [00:13:00] in what I'm doing, Um, and sort of building on that growing from that through constructive good conversations, um, being challenged, being learning new ideas, thoughts and having my own thinking questioned. And that and thirdly, networking. I mean, it's just this conference can't help but be wonderful because there's hundreds of people doing really exciting things that are all in one space. And even if I only get to talk to half a dozen of them, I will have benefited from that. [00:13:30] So flashing forward to like 30 years time when somebody is listening back to this. Is there something that you would say to them? That's a really mean question. Um, first of all, nobody will be interested enough probably to listen back to this, but hopefully there will be someone looking back on us and thinking, Oh, the poor things. Life was so much more difficult then, and we've moved so much further. And now it's not a new or exciting [00:14:00] thought to be challenging, sort of binary, simplistic conceptions of identity. Of course, we see that complexity and of course, we're addressing power imbalances. But really, nowadays it's all far more constructive. And you're stating the obvious. I'd like it if they think I'm stating the obvious. Do you ever think that we could actually go backwards rather than kind of, you know, being a lot more open far too often? Um, I used to work in [00:14:30] a Roland. I guess this can go on record. I used to work for the New Zealand government in a role called GL BT I policy. And that was something that was introduced by the Labour Party as their platform. And I don't even remember when. So I wasn't the first person in that role. And so there was actually a government position that had the aim of people working across government with expertise in these areas to assist other officials to work inclusively and take this population group into account [00:15:00] and what they were doing because there was an acknowledgement that that wasn't happening satisfactorily. Um, we were really confident that that was a secure, stable role, and I left that role at the very start of 2009 and soon after that was just after a change of government. There was a national government came into power, and, um, soon after that role was basically disbanded with no or anything, it just ceased to actually [00:15:30] work. So that's in a way, just a really small thing. But it was one that shocked me because it wasn't part of a huge massive backswing. But it was a real indication that this is still seen as very marginal and very, um, dispensable. So I think in many, many small ways like that we're a lot more vulnerable than we think we are and that what's seen as positive social change can very [00:16:00] easily slip backwards. So I hope not too far, and that generally we're making three steps forward and only one backwards. But I think we are making lots of backward steps and, of course, people's vision of where forwards and backwards this varies. But in terms of sort of real basics, like more equity, more potential for participation, more acknowledgement of of diversity and challenging some of the power and balances and then inequities. I [00:16:30] think that that's much more vulnerable than here in Aotearoa, New Zealand. We often like to think.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags