The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SEXUAL ORIENTATION RESEARCH PHASE 2:
THE FUTURE OF LGBT RESEARCH - PERSPECTIVES OF COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS

2 ISSUES OF POLICY & PRACTICE

This chapter explores the range of policy issues identified by participants in relation to LGBT communities in Scotland. Although the central purpose of the groups was to discuss research needs, a portion of the time was spent talking about policy concerns. Clearly, the two are inter-related and it was anticipated from the outset that in order to generate a better understanding of research needs, it would be necessary to discuss with organisational representatives some broader policy issues.

Within the groups, organisational representatives were presented with the range of policy issues raised at the two thematic seminars held by the Executive with Scottish LGBT organisations. This list of issues is displayed in Box 2.1. Group participants were then invited to elaborate on these issues or to identify other policy topics not already encompassed by the list displayed. The result was a great variety of responses across a diverse range of policy areas. This discussion of policy will undoubtedly have significance for most policy makers within the Executive, particularly in the light of the commitments laid down in the Equality Strategy. In their discussion of policy, organisational representatives drew a clear distinction between two sets of policy issues. The first of these encompassed quite distinct policy topics that fall clearly under the jurisdiction of specific Departments within the Executive. Other issues raised were more crosscutting in nature and would likely have salience across many Departments. These somewhat different issues are discussed in more detail in this chapter.

2.1 Specific policy issues

Organisational representatives identified a broad range of specific policy issues of concern to LGBT communities. A number of these potentially encompassed all LGB & T people and related to issues such as health, employment, crime and justice, partnership and housing issues. Other issues related to particular members of the LGBT communities - such as youth or minority ethnic people - or concerned specific parts of the LGBT coalition, such as lesbian women or transgendered people. Where such distinctions were drawn, they are outlined in the discussion below.

2.1.1 Education

While homophobic bullying and violence was perceived as an issue that went beyond education itself, it was felt to be a particularly important one to address within schools since it affected the learned behaviours of children and the opinions and attitudes that they carried into maturity. It was also recognised that bullying on the basis of sexual orientation affected all children, since heterosexual children were sometimes wrongly presumed to be otherwise and also subject to such abuse. In practice terms, there was felt to be a distinct need at school level to record all instances of bullying, as a way of demonstrating the scale of the problem. The repeal of Section 2a was seen as paving the way to tackle homophobic bullying but there was some disappointment that education authorities had not been pro-active (or that education policy had not been more instructive) in combating homophobia in schools - for example by instigating education campaigns in schools and colleges.

Box 2.1 Issues raised at thematic seminars, presented during discussions

More broadly, it was felt that until LGBT teachers felt comfortable in being open about their sexual or gender identity, without obscuring promotion chances or attracting censure from colleagues, then it was unlikely that pupils would develop more positive attitudes towards or as LGBT people.

In general, it was felt that little had been done to ensure that sexual orientation issues were included in the curriculum since the repeal of Section 2a. Moreover, groups perceived that in signing up to notions of equality of opportunity, policy was now needed to ensure that all school-going children received education on sex, sexual orientation, discrimination & prejudice. Only when this happened, it was argued, would the principle of equality be considered foundational to the curriculum. In this vein, a strong need was voiced for inclusion and positive representation of LGBT people (as pupils and/or parents) and their families in the school curriculum. This was seen as an important step to making pupils more accepting of alternative family structures. It was also felt that seeing their life experience reflected in the school curriculum would be very affirmative for both LGBT youth and the children of LGBT parents.

2.1.2 Partnership

There was much support for the introduction of some system of same sex partnership or civil marriage in Scotland. While there was debate around whether LGBT people should be able to or would even want to follow the path of civil marriage or to forge some new system of partnership (an issue beyond the remit of this report), the aim was almost unanimous: for same sex relationships to be awarded the same rights and benefits of partnership as were enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

'I think the whole marriage issue is confused in this country because it tends to mix both civil marriage and religious marriage. Unlike France for example where there has to be a civil ceremony and if you want a religious ceremony you can have it. I mean here we kind of fudge the issue. And I would like to see a total separation that marriage as far as the state was concerned was simply a registration of your partnership. And if people wish to have a religious ceremony and those groups wish to see that as marriage that's fine, but allow everybody the same rights in law. Whether you want to call it marriage or registration of your partnership or whatever' (Regional Group, LGBT Switchboard)

Legal recognition of partnership was seen as important in conferring kinship rights of partners; publicly recognising financial interdependence (with full entitlement afforded to mixed-sex couples in terms of pensions, inheritance, property and state benefits); and in permitting LGBT couples to foster and adopt. There was little support for systems of partnership which conferred no legal rights or responsibilities on either partner, though such 'unions' were seen as an important step in the right policy direction, or alternatively, of great personal significance and import.

2.1.3 Crime & Justice

Of those issues raised relating to crime or justice, most were based on a perception that the Scottish legal and criminal justice system was, in the main, intolerant of LGBT individuals. This was felt to lead to considerable disparity in the way that LGBT issues were dealt with by the police and the courts, and with how LGBT people were viewed by such authorities, when compared with how heterosexual people fared.

The prevention, reporting and prosecution of hate crimes were perceived as particularly important policy issues. Specific issues included the homophobic attitude - both real and perceived - of police authorities and how this impacted on people's willingness to report being the victim of homophobic crime; the importance shown by police authorities to homophobic crime; and whether any record was kept of homophobic crime at a local level.

'[Name of bar] had its probably worst and one of very few incidents last Saturday at the club. And we were absolutely disgusted when we phoned up the police the next day, 1) to find out why they hadn't come round the same evening to take statements whilst it was still fresh in everybody's mind and 2) to enquire what they'd done with the yobs that were hurling bottles and abuse at our front door and customers. And we were absolutely dismayed to be told that they'd been given a warning, later to appear in front of an inspector to be told off and slapped on the wrist. And we just couldn't believe it that that's all that these young hooligans are going to be dealt out as a form of punishment. It was absolutely unbelievable' (Regional Group, non-affiliated individual)

The perception of unsympathetic and derogatory treatment by police authorities was also identified as underscoring an unwillingness by members of the LGBT communities to come to the police for assistance on other matters where their sexual orientation or gender would be discussed, for example, when they experienced violence or abuse within their domestic lives. Again, there was some belief that such crimes would not be taken seriously.

It was also suggested that although policy or the law was not always explicitly homophobic, there was considerable leeway for some laws to be interpreted or enforced in a discriminatory way. The example recurrently cited here was the prosecution (or the threat of prosecution) for breach of the peace of those of the same sex who displayed affection - such as kissing - in public.

'I'm not sure if it's a policing issue but it's not actually a legal … it's kind of a legal issue because it's discrimination against LGB&T people without a specific anti gay lesbian law…[I have] a friend who got arrested for kissing his partner goodbye at the Aberdeen airport for example. They were arrested, his partner having missed his flight back to Hamburg had to pay X amount to get a new ticket and also the worry that he's going to get a criminal record. It never got anywhere…and it never was going to but it was just used to intimidate him' (Regional Group, LGBT Organisation)

Fear of such negative treatment was considered widespread, even in those cities (like Edinburgh and Aberdeen) where there had been co-operation between the police authorities and the LGBT community - through the development of liaison fora.

A wide disparity was perceived in the way that alleged sexual offences were handled by police authorities. Incidents involving gay and bisexual men were seen to be treated more harshly and with greater punitive consequences, than those involving heterosexuals. Participants also believed that the policing of men selling sex to other men could be far harsher and conducted with less understanding than women selling sex to men in the same locality.

Finally, throughout the discussions, there were recurrent requests for policy or legal clarification surrounding a range of legal issues. This concerned issues such as the legal recognition of change of gender for transgendered people. For instance, on a practical level there were questions raised about how the law would advise upon which toilets a transgendered person should use. Furthermore, it was felt that current sexual offences legislation was not explicit on the status of male rape and there were repeated requests for clarification that the current law was gender neutral in the way it was prosecuted.

2.1.4 Employment

The need to combat discrimination in the workplace was recurrently mentioned, together with the wish for LGBT people to feel secure in disclosing their identities at work without it resulting in homophobia from colleagues, or of it impeding promotion possibilities. In a similar manner bullying was conceived of as an issue that pervaded in many areas of LGBT life, and as prominent in the workplace, as it is within the schoolyard. LGBT employees were seen to require legal protection from employer/colleague discrimination, something that is absent at present. Without such a legal safeguard, it was felt that LGBT individuals faced considerable insecurity in the workplace, leading some to conceal their sexual orientation from employers and colleagues, or to avoid jobs or careers that may be subject to greater moral or public scrutiny.

'I still have a problem being out as a teacher in that… I work in one of the catholic schools in [area], I'm non catholic and I'm a gay man. And I just think that would be career suicide if I admitted that, still in this day and age. I feel like I'm leading a double life and it's so frustrating from that point of view. So I feel there's a lot needs to be done educating … educating teachers first of all' (Regional Group, LGBT Switchboard)

In addition, the need to ensure that LGBT issues were better represented and understood within all unions was emphasised.

2.1.5 Youth

The provision of adequate peer & related support services for LGBT youth was a topic of much discussion within the groups, fuelled both by the LGBT youth and student organisations represented but also, more generally, by other participants' personal memories of difficulty encountered during younger years. The lack of funding for such services was seen to prohibit the proper support of LGBT youth services. It was felt that LGBT youth were not seen as a priority by statutory funding agencies, particularly at local authority level. Even where funding had been awarded, it was generally viewed as short-term or one-off which made it difficult to develop sustainable provision. This reluctance was seen by some to result from a perceived discomfort among statutory agencies in addressing LGBT issues, especially where they concerned younger community members.

'And I think there is not so much a general reluctance, I think…yeah, there's a fear there, particularly round the youth thing, because even if you had to talk about it or discuss it seriously like adults, grown up adults, because they fear they're going to get attacked by the [national newspaper], some [religious organisation]' (Regional Group, University LGBT Organisation)

As a result, there were many examples given where LGBT youth projects survived either by voluntary effort alone, or were reliant on other budgetary 'pots' - such as funds allocated for HIV prevention. This issue is discussed further below.

2.1.6 Parenting

There were recurrent calls for the rights of LGBT parents/co-parents to be legally enshrined and for adoption laws to be reformed to allow for full parental rights for both same-sex parents. Parental rights for LGBT people was also raised as a policy issue by those representatives who drew attention to the difficulties encountered by LGBT people in getting custody and access to children from previous heterosexual relationships. The present legal framework and social services practices were felt to be largely unsupportive of the problems faced by such parents, which it was argued led to severely disrupted relationships between able, willing parents and their children.

'Because there are an awful lot of queer parents who are divorced, quite often as a result of some lifestyle change they've undergone, and are they allowed appropriate access to children?No' (Central Belt Group, University Staff LGBT Organisation)

There was also a perceived lack of support for parents of LGBT children and a view that more support should be channelled towards helping parents come to terms with their child's sexual orientation or gender dysphoria. ⁷ Such support was viewed as key to assuaging difficulty amongst LGBT youth by helping to prevent family breakdown in the aftermath of coming out.

2.1.7 Health ⁸

There was strong endorsement of funding to maintain & further develop HIV prevention and treatment services. However, there was also some concern voiced that statutory budgets may decrease or cease to be ring fenced for HIV within the overall health budget. Equally, while considered necessary, it was felt that the focus on HIV should not divert attention from other areas of health for LGBT people, such as broader sexual health issues and more general health concerns. There were recurrent comments about how few services targeted lesbian and bisexual women as clients (in comparison to gay and bisexual men), as well as views which highlighted the lack of services aimed specifically at the general health needs of transgendered people. This lack of provision was believed to have its roots in the lack of research and data on LGBT health (apart from HIV) and this is discussed further in Chapter 3.

'I think funding is obviously a vital question in that there is a need for service and those services are having their funding stretched by saying 'Oh, it's a gay man's issue, it'll have to come out of the HIV budget', which means a lower quality of service for something which is non-HIV related and I also means that we're stretching to breaking point already budgets for HIV services…It's very difficult to get services which are non-HIV…most funding is based around the disease rather than individual…Well woman clinics is a notable exception to that'. (Central Belt Group, National LGBT Organisation)

Issues of mental health were seen as significant across a whole range of contexts for LGBT people (if closeted, bullied, isolated etc) and the service needs of some sectors of LGBT communities - particularly those who may not be 'out' - were seen as acute. However, there was concern over whether issues around sexual orientation would always be picked up within mainstream services and the professional competence or capacity of public services to deal effectively with such problems was questioned. Similarly, organisational representatives discussed alcohol and drug dependency issues amongst LGBT people and the lack of specific services to address such difficulties.

Ensuring inclusive access by LGBT people to mainstream primary care services was considered an important policy issue, in addition to recognising and meeting the specific needs of LGBT people themselves. While mainstream primary and secondary care was seen as the appropriate service provider for everybody in an inclusive society, it was also deemed to be important for tailored services to be made available to LGBT people, simply because their needs require a specific expertise which at present was felt to be absent from all but a few mainstream services. This issue is discussed in more detail below.

Concern was also raised over the policy governing the prohibition of blood donation from men who have had sexual contact with other men. These regulations were seen to be discriminatory since all members of the population are potentially at risk of HIV infection. In this respect, regulations that singled out sexual practices or lifestyles were seen to communicate intolerance of sexual orientation, rather than being guided by public health requirements.

'One thing I'd just like to state under health was something that was raised at the last [thematic] seminar. And that was access to blood transfusion and access to being able to donate blood in services where at present anybody that's ever had sex with another man is written off for life. And that's something which just seems very old' (Regional Group, University LGBT Organisation)

2.1.8 Housing

It was felt that little was known about the housing needs of LGBT people, or about the nature and extent of homelessness among them. Furthermore, there was judged to be little willingness, competency or capacity amongst housing and homelessness services to support people whose sexual or gender identity had made them vulnerable to homelessness. The needs of young and homeless LGBT people were felt to be particularly complex, and in need of dedicated attention and training, as is apparent in this representative's argument:

'I think training needs to be increased for housing workers because they are'nay really acknowledging how vulnerable young LGBT people are. I think that's in my experience, a lot of the young people … and how likely they are to become homeless as a direct result of their sexuality, but how you know things like mental health problems, drug problems can be a direct result of the discrimination that they face. And I don't think there is acknowledgement of that, certainly in my experience in this area anyway' (Central Belt Group, LGBT YouthOrganisation).

2.1.9 Multiple disadvantage

Though raised in the thematic seminars, issues specific to disabled, elder or minority ethnic LGBT people were not elaborated to any significant extent within the group discussions. Discussants did identify the need to ensure that policy on LGBT issues was inclusive of the full diversity inherent in those communities, but did not necessarily feel they had the requisite knowledge to be able to highlight the full range of what these issues may be.

'I think also the multiple disadvantage - elderly, disabled … etc … I think they're sort of lost somewhere in the overall view of things. If we talk about GLB communities that's fine but there's also people in GLB communities that are deaf, who are in wheelchairs, who are elderly. And I think that somewhere along the line they've got lost and I think that their needs are just as important as anyone else's, they don't seem to have a focus as much' (Regional Group, Gay Men's Group )

Their lack of specific coverage within the group discussions is perhaps unsurprising given that there were no organisations in attendance that specifically represented the views of these constituencies. Scottish minority ethnic or disabled LGBT groups had not been identified in the course of recruitment, and while representatives of organisations of older lesbians and gay men were contacted and invited, they were unable to attend.

2.2 Cross-cutting policy concerns

While specific policy issues raised by organisational representatives corresponded to traditional policy areas such as 'health' or 'education', a number of policy priorities were also identified that were broader in their scope or focus. They related to multiple aspects of LGBT life. Consequently, these issues have significance across a wide range of traditional policy areas and are likely to cut across existing departmental or administrative boundaries.

The central theme running through all cross-cutting themes was the need for recognition and visibility of LGBT communities in all contexts within mainstream Scottish society. In terms of equality, representatives identified the need for the enshrinement (and 'mainstreaming') of equal rights for all LGBT community members in all facets of policy and public service provision in Scotland. In terms of social inclusion there was a perceived need to widen current understandings of the concept beyond economic definitions and be inclusive of LGBT communities in addition to other recognised equality groups (such as disabled and minority ethnic groups for instance). Lack of recognition was also implicated in the way public service provision was often unprepared to meet the unique needs of LGBT community members. In terms of funding, representatives identified how recognition by funding agencies was needed to develop and sustain LGBT community infrastructure in cities and in rural areas to raise LGBT communities' visibility as a whole. There was also felt to be some lack of acceptance of the diversity within LGBT communities by community members themselves and organisational representatives identified how the interests of both rural and Transgender groups were sometimes ill-considered in a variety of ways. These issues are discussed more fully below.

2.2.1 Equality

A common theme evident in representatives' accounts was the overriding need for LGBT equality in all spheres of life (and by implication in all aspects of government policy), as illustrated above by the discussion of the need for equality in employment or civil partnership. There was a strong sense that every facet of policy and public service provision in Scotland should enshrine the equal rights of LGBT communities and individuals. Anti-discrimination legislation was seen to be the key to ensuring this, backed up by other legislative reforms such as the introduction of incitement to hatred legislation. In the context of mainstreaming - a key commitment of the Executive's Equality Strategy - there was a perceived need to review all legislation to ensure that the rights and interests of LGBT people were protected and respected, even in those policy areas that appeared not to be directly related to sexual or gender identity.

2.2.2 Social Inclusion

The incumbent administration's focus on facilitating greater social inclusion was generally not perceived to encompass LGBT communities. Here, 'inclusion' was felt to be too narrowly defined and seen to be mainly focused upon economic determinants. Even where there was a move to broaden the idea of inclusion beyond the economic, it was often seen to be limited to issues of ethnicity or gender and rarely to encompass other attributes such as sexual orientation. Here, Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIPs) came in for particular criticism. Their focus was largely seen as limited to neighbourhood renewal, which while clearly of value, excluded the needs of communities that are more geographically dispersed - such as LGBT communities. The Social Inclusion Partnership set up in Glasgow to tackle the issues faced by minority ethnic communities was heralded as an example of how issues of discrimination and prejudice could be targeted by social inclusion measures. Indeed, there were recurrent calls for a similar SIP to support and develop LGBT community infrastructure.

'I'd like to see the broader topic of social inclusion actually represented. And I know it's a bit of a catch-all and certainly within Scotland the focus isn't only on social inclusion as being an economic issue, it's about being an accessed participation, a citizenship issue. And that in many ways can encompass a number of areas. We talk a lot about youth, but also the needs of older LGBT people and elderly care and elderly access is something that's featured in social inclusion but there's no provision made if you're elderly but not straight. So that's social inclusion encompassing a number of issues, whether that be access to goods and services, equal participation within community initiatives, care of the elderly, social participation. Which I think whilst one can't legislate for it there is an opportunity to promote opportunities such that people can feel socially integrated within the community in which they live' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation)

In this respect, the broader policy objective of increasing social inclusion was seen as having direct relevance to LGBT communities by: increasing participation in society; creating greater access for LGBT people to community support and resources; and increasing the participation of open and out LGBT people in wider Scottish society without the fear of violence or harassment.

2.2.3 Public services

As public services encompass a large number of single issue areas (such as healthcare, education and housing for instance), it is perhaps unsurprising that this policy issue was raised in a number of different contexts throughout the group discussions. While issues relating to individual public services have been explored in the previous section, representatives also identified key issues of concern for LGBT communities in relation to public services taken as a whole.

The major policy concern through all groups was the way that attempts to recognise the diversity of the Scottish population were often limited to issues of gender, ethnicity or disability and frequently excluded LGBT communities. From this perspective, it was felt that, in the main, public services (e.g. housing, healthcare, social work, education) were ill prepared to meet the unique needs of LGBT people, in terms of either access or provision.

'I'm still not happy to tell my GP I'm a gay man because I grew up in a generation of gay men and HIV where you would lose your life insurance, you know. I don't have that confidence that many of the public bodies are going to be necessarily as supportive or as good as they should. And I think the Executive need to be working really to sort of create a sea change of attitude to us' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Switchboard )

While mainstreaming debates are not the key focus of this report, organisational representatives placed considerable emphasis on the need to ensure equal access for LGBT people to mainstream services. Issues of training were considered of great importance, with particular importance placed upon the need to deliver LGBT-awareness training to all public sector workers (e.g. police, teachers, social workers etc). However, while mainstream services were viewed as important, participants also emphasised the need for appropriate specific services that can sometimes be better placed to meet the unique needs of LGBT people. This view often hinted at an underlying fear that the specific needs of LGBT people would be lost or not catered for within mainstream services. Furthermore, it was felt that such specific services were crucial in meeting current need because it was judged that mainstream services did not always have the policies, practices or expertise necessary to adequately meet the needs of LGBT communities.

'Because for me the funding issue goes with mainstreaming and it looks at where we balance mainstream service provision within existing funding patterns against where the LGBT community is playing catch-up and albeit if you're gay lesbian, bisexual transgender and you go to a service provider in some senses you are A N Other punter, A N Other customer, but in other senses there are things that are unique. And if that uniqueness is not being recognised within the mainstream there needs to be an interim funding strategy to allow that to brought back to the mainstream in the future' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation)

2.2.4 Funding

The needs of LGBT communities and organisations were believed to warrant greater recognition and attention by funders than had been exhibited thus far. This was seen to be important in developing and sustaining LGBT community infrastructure in cities and in rural areas; for capacity building within these communities; and in raising the visibility of LGBT people and communities.

Overall, there was felt to be limited central government funding of LGBT communities outside of those funds earmarked for HIV prevention and the effects of this were seen to be twofold. Firstly, it was argued that given the paucity of specific funding for LGBT concerns, communities were forced to rely on government funding channelled to LGBT community organisations to aid HIV prevention. Consequently, there were reports of how HIV funding was sometimes used to support LGBT initiatives that were not HIV-specific in focus. This was felt to be an inappropriate, but necessary, use of these funds. Furthermore, it was seen to put considerable strain on HIV services that already had competing concerns for what was ultimately a limited budget. Secondly, the lack of sufficient funding for LGBT communities was seen to create an over-reliance on voluntary effort, which, it was argued, can lead to fatigue amongst community members and, consequently, lead to unsustainable development within LGBT communities. This was a point that was made most forcibly within the more regional group discussions.

'What tends to happen is that there is a fragility to our community that groups start up and then they collapse. There isn't the sort of mutual support around our community. It relies too much on sustained energy from individuals and if that support isn't given back to those people then things tend to collapse' (Regional Group, Gay Men's Group )

Funding from local authority agencies was perceived as dependent, to a large degree, on local attitudes rather than an objective standard. This was demonstrated by community services (such as switchboards) that crossed a number of local authority areas but were more likely to obtain funding in one area as opposed to the others, even though a similar need was demonstrated across both. Accordingly, there was a common perception that most LGBT concerns were, at the least, under funded.

Other funding initiatives, such as the Community Fund or the New Opportunities Fund aimed at community development, were also criticised for their lack of explicit mention of LGBT concerns within their funding criteria.

2.2.5 Rural issues

Fundamentally, the experience of LGBT people outside of the central belt (essentially outside Glasgow and Edinburgh) was felt to be qualitatively different and significantly more difficult. It was argued that greater invisibility (especially in the Highlands and Islands), greater perceived homophobia within rural communities and the power of the church in rural areas made life more problematic for LGBT people, and made it difficult for any sort of community development or capacity building to occur.

'So I think people find themselves battling with just more than these issues. It's a case of 'Well we are here, we do exist, and there are gay people in the Highlands. And we do have a voice and we do have rights.' So they find themselves battling with a multitude of different things. I think if these points came up in the central belt I truly believe that it would be … there'd be a level of easiness if you like. Up here there's not' (Regional Group, LGBT Youth Organisation)

'I think that … and I see the difference in the line of work I do anyway when I go to seminar meetings whatever, down in Glasgow and Edinburgh, there's more services available to GLB&T people in Glasgow and Edinburgh in that area. You come up north, you have not a lot compared to what they have to offer. So in some ways the area that we do live in does have an impact, it has a huge impact' (Regional Group, LGBT Youth Organisation)

Organisational representatives from outside the central belt emphasised the importance of support for LGBT communities countrywide, rather than it being concentrated in those areas with the largest visible population of LGBT people, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. In this sense, the development of rural service infrastructure was seen as key. There was felt to be an urgent need for support of LGBT people in towns and cities outside the central belt, perhaps by the establishment of LGBT centres similar to those in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which could then co-ordinate outreach services to the Highlands & Islands where there may be less demand or capacity. It was also suggested that, in addition to specific service provision outside Glasgow and Edinburgh, LGBT community groups should have better access to existing local community infrastructure, such as village halls and youth resources, which would allow for greater visibility and support in rural areas.

2.2.6 Issues for transgendered people

Policy issues relating to transgender people were perceived in terms of specific requirements that transgender people have such as being able to change one's gender on birth certificates and (on this basis) being able to legally marry and change details of gender on public and financial service records. However transgender issues were also considered cross-cutting of all policy areas, in as much as lesbian, gay or bisexual people had somewhat different needs and priorities across a range of policy questions.

P1: I assume the transgendered issues here include all these other ones that … this is just a separate one because … you know specifically to transgendered issues.

Int: Yes, do you want to say a bit more about that?

P1: Just interested again … you know you could say the same thing about partnership rights, adoption, you know, that's under partnership rights, but I'm assuming there's going to be that linkage there as such'

(Regional Group, Transgender Group )

There was tension in some groups about locating transgender issues with lesbian, gay and bisexual concerns, though this tended only to be raised in those group discussions where transgender groups were not specifically represented. Where it was voiced, it was suggested that the inclusion of transgender issues within the lesbian, gay and bisexual agenda had not always been fully or widely debated. Here, a distinction was made between transgender concerns and lesbian, gay and bisexual issues, the former being conceived as having more to do with gender equality rather than sexual orientation, and therefore seen as having less of a relevance to lesbian, gay and bisexual policy agenda.

P1. I think gay and lesbian things are entirely separate from that. I don't think there is…there's a false unity.

Int: What makes it different?

P1: What makes it different is because …to a large extent that's about gender and it's about gender identity. And gay and lesbian issues are largely about sexuality'

(Central Belt Group, L&G Trade Union representative)

Consequently, the service needs of transgendered people were also conceived to be, potentially, quite different.

'I feel that there is a need for more transgender services. You know I think these are very important issues but I mean as [participant] was saying I think that the way forward is to work in partnership and to have an inclusive policy of LGBT policy. But there are many many different issues with transgender. So I don't feel so much that there's a need for separate services … or separate organisations … but there's a need for specialist services within organisations. They're often lumped in simply because there's nowhere else for transgender people to go. But quite often I've known transgender people in counselling and so on who don't feel they've got a tremendous amount in common with the lesbian gay bisexual community because the issues are different and they have been lumped in in the past simply because that was the most … you know by default, because there was nowhere else'. (Regional Group, Gay Men's Organisation)

However, there was also strong support for the inclusion of transgender issues by lesbian, gay and bisexual representatives. Here it was argued that what linked these seemingly different agendas was the common experience of discrimination and therefore transgender equality was an obvious and necessary companion to equal rights for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.

'At the time we [National LGBT organisation] were LGB and there was a desire to include Transgender in it, and I was completely against it on the basis that LGB are sexual orientation issues and transgender is a gender identity issue. And why should they all be together? And the organisation finally came down [on LGBT] and I agree with it now…that I suppose the bottom line is why not? I mean basically it's all about discrimination'. (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation )

Equally, transgendered representatives sometimes felt that the inclusion of their policy objectives within the lesbian, gay and bisexual agenda was sometimes tokenistic, rather than fully supportive or comprehensive. Furthermore, it was argued that while transgendered people faced discrimination from society at large, there could be no guarantee that transgender issues would be fully understood even within an LGB forum.

2.3 Establishing policy priority

Once the full range of policy issues had been identified, group participants were asked to indicate which issues were of policy priority to LGBT communities. An attempt to establish a priority was made for two reasons. Firstly, given the limited time within the group discussions, it was hoped that the prioritised issues could be examined in greater depth for the remainder of the group, a particular focus of which would be to draw out the concomitant research needs. Secondly, it was hoped that these 'policy priorities' could be a focus for the third phase of the overall research process (as described in Chapter 1) where policymakers, academics and key researchers would be interviewed about the development of both policy and research on LGBT communities.

Given the diverse nature of the policy issues described thus far, it is perhaps unsurprising that there was considerable difficulty in ascribing priority to any one set of issues. When groups were asked to construct priority, the general view expressed was that all the policy issues outlined were of equal priority. Even where, despite reservations, group participants were encouraged to construct some taxonomy of priority, such a broad range of policy issues were put forward that the list topics quickly came to resemble the full range policy topics outlined, as demonstrated by this extract from one of the groups:

Int: Can I just be the devil's advocate? Cos I've just been writing down your priorities just very very scribbly …I think I have the same list here [in the note of policy priorities], apart from one or two issues, as the list that is here on these sheets [the broad list of policy topics].

P1 No, all we said is youth, mental health …

Int: Education, Drugs and alcohol …

P1 Well that's all under health, right?

Int: I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand the nature of priority.

P1 So we've mentioned virtually everything that's under 'health'… we've mentioned the youth as a very important one … well and education, so that's three off this list, and then minority [ethnic] which is …

Int: We talked about transgender issues. We talked about bisexual issues. We also talked about kind of women being a priority as a kind of an under-resourced area. And we talked about older lesbian and gay men.

P2 I think you're right as devil's advocate. I think that there is a tendency … it's because there's so little been done. It's part of the nature of the fact that there's a lot of work that needs to be done (Central Belt Group, F1: Bisexual Organisation; M2: University LGBT Organisation)

Participants in all groups questioned why priority should have to be constructed at all. It was felt to be a difficult request and something that other communities in Scotland would not be asked to do. Two primary concerns were recurrently expressed. First, there was a fear that to prioritise some issues over others might lead to short term policy gains but the opportunity cost of these could be that other community needs would be ignored.

'I kind of feel we're in a bit of an invidious position in a way in this whole process. We know there's a limited pot of money, we know we're never ever going to get everything that we'd like, and we almost have on the one hand the chance to invest for the future, to invest in capacity, to invest in knowledge, to invest in an infrastructure which we know won't give us the answer in itself but it will be providing us with a long term foundation. On the other hand we have the opportunity to pursue key policy areas, get some quicker results, get some shorter term wins' (Central Belt Group, (National LGBT organisation )

'Well there are priorities because you've put them on the agenda. If we're pushed then, okay, we'll come down to priorities, but the fear is for us that …anything we don't mention as a priority will never ever be done' (Central Belt Group, Gay Men's Group)

Secondly, attention was drawn within the groups to an obvious tension between individual, organisational and community priorities, which made it difficult to decide on what was priority. For many participants, personal priorities were seen to differ from the policy priorities of the organisation they were representing, which in turn may be different from the priorities that they consider useful or politic to the wider LGBT communities.

'As the chief executive and service provider it would have to be the funding related issues. As an individual gay man I think partnerships rights are extremely important, as are all the other ones based on legislation like the employment rights, things like pensions and things like that. So there's a variation. But I do also think there is that point that you stressed, they're all priorities as well, because I don't think we can ever get away from that' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation )

While falling short of identifying priority, certain issues were seen as foundational for LGBT communities and they tended to constitute the more crosscutting themes discussed earlier.

'I just…maybe on the point there are some foundational things. Well in particular the issue of equal opportunities and anti-discrimination and ensuring that that really is mainstream throughout public policy. And that's kind of a foundational thing. Once you've got that then it does become easier to start addressing the more specific issues because there's a bit of a push going on' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation )

Thus equality issues (such as legislative change and innovation) and funding were seen as basic structural necessities, without which it would be difficult to make any further inroads into improvement in service provision for LGBT communities. Training and education were seen as fundamental to the change in public opinion and attitudes that would preface any greater acceptance of LGBT people in Scotland, and to effect the equal treatment of LGBT people in public service contexts. However, it was not considered that any of these issues were any more or less important than others discussed and groups emphasised that priority could not be drawn up in this manner.

In overview, it is clear that focus group discussions with LGBT organisational representatives have proved an invaluable method of consulting LGBT communities on policy issues felt to be of current concern in Scotland. While representatives did not feel they were able to establish priorities from the diverse range of specific and cross-cutting policy issues identified, it was clear that establishing such a broad range of policy topics would in fact have a lot to contribute in terms of the shaping of a research agenda for LGBT communities in Scotland. The parameters of this research agenda are explored in Chapter 3.

« Previous | Contents | Next »