Search

Begin New Search Topic LGBT+

51. Centring Gender and Power in Evaluation and Research: Sharing experiences from Oxfam GB’s quantitative impact evaluations

Author:
Sarah Barakat, Alexia Pretari, and Jaynie Vonk
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
Bringing a feminist intent to research, monitoring and evaluation practices leads to defining these as tools to contribute to transforming the lives of women, girls and non-binary people, and to bringing about social justice. This has meant putting gender and power at the centre of our practice, which has in turn shaped the technical choices made specifically in quantitative impact evaluations. This paper focuses on describing how these technical choices, as well as ethical considerations, are changed by this feminist intent. The paper also presents the lessons learned and questions raised along the way, which may be useful for MEAL and research practitioners, as well as programme managers. How can we bring intersectionality to the fore? What does it mean to go beyond the gender binary? How can this work be transformative?
Topic:
Women, Feminism, LGBT+, and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

52. Surviving Overlapping Precarity in a 'Gigantic Hellhole' A Case Study of Venezuelan LGBTQI+ Asylum Seekers and Undocument Migrant in Brazil amid COVID-19

Author:
Yvonne Su, Tyler Valiquette, and Yuriko Cowper-Smith
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Statelessness & Citizenship Review
Institution:
Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Melbourne Law School
Abstract:
As COVID-19 infection rates grew exponentially in Latin America, countries closed their borders in an attempt to stop the virus. But such measures have put migrants, asylum seekers and other forcibly displaced persons at more risk. For highly precarious groups, such as Venezuelan migrants and asylum seekers in Brazil, who were already facing a multitude of challenges before the pandemic, COVID-19 is multiplying the threats.
Topic:
LGBT+, Public Health, Asylum, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Stateless Population
Political Geography:
Brazil, South America, and Venezuela

53. Diving Deeper: Under the surface of LBQTI Funding

Author:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
Diving Deeper: Under the surface of LBQTI funding data explores gaps and improvements over time and identifies opportunities to increase funding for LBQ, trans, and intersex communities and movements. The brief also identifies top LBTQI funders and shares good practice examples of government and multilateral funders integrating LBQTI issues into their gender equality development programming.
Topic:
Development, LGBT+, Equality, Philanthropy, Funding, and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

54. Diving Deeper: Under the surface of Intermediary Funding

Author:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
Diving Deeper: Under the surface of Intermediary funding data compares data on different types of intermediaries in order to provide greater understanding to the field about how, where, and to whom intermediaries are distributing resources. The brief also examines how government, multilateral, and private foundation funders partner with intermediaries to support global LGBTI rights and development.
Topic:
Development, Human Rights, LGBT+, Data, Philanthropy, and Funding
Political Geography:
Global Focus

55. Diving Deeper: Under the Surface of Embassy Funding

Author:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
Diving Deeper: Under the surface of LGBTI embassy funding data examines the extent to which embassies are providing resources for local LGBTI movements, the types of organizations and issues that are supported, as well as best practice examples. At a time when major development assistance streams supporting LGBTI issues are being stretched and in some instances reduced, and when LGBTI organizations face funding shortages, this brief provides government donors and other advocates with evidence about how embassy funding can be used to support and strengthen local movements.
Topic:
Development, LGBT+, Data, Funding, and Embassies
Political Geography:
Global Focus

56. Is Religious Liberty a Shield or a Sword?

Author:
PRRI Staff
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
PRRI: Public Religion Research Institute
Abstract:
Despite frequent disagreement on how to implement freedom of religion, the vast majority of Americans understand the basic religious protection offered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nearly nine in ten Americans (88%) agree that the U.S. government cannot establish an official religion or favor one religion over another, including 68% who completely agree with this statement. Only 11% of Americans disagree with the idea that the government cannot establish an official religion. Overwhelming agreement with this statement is consistent across all demographic groups. Large majorities of all religious groups agree that the U.S. government cannot establish an official religion or favor one religion over another, including white mainline Protestants (94%), white Catholics (90%), religiously unaffiliated Americans (88%), Protestants of color (84%), and white evangelical Protestants (82%).[1] All partisans are equally likely to agree with the statement that the U.S. government cannot establish an official religion or favor one religion over another, including 91% of Democrats, 88% of independents, and 86% of Republicans.
Topic:
Religion, LGBT+, Reproductive Health, and Freedom of Religion
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

57. Despite Partisan Rancor, Americans Broadly Support LGBTQ Rights

Author:
PRRI Staff
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
PRRI: Public Religion Research Institute
Abstract:
More than three in four Americans (76%) favor laws that would protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public accommodation. Less than one in five Americans (19%) oppose nondiscrimination protections for LGBT Americans. Around one-third of Americans strongly favor nondiscrimination protections (34%), compared to less than one in ten who strongly oppose them (6%). Majorities of nearly every subgroup of Americans favor LGBT nondiscrimination protections, across race, age, religious, and partisan lines. The present level of support is higher than any PRRI has recorded in previous years, and is a significant increase from 2019, when 72% of Americans favored nondiscrimination protections for LGBT Americans. Prior to 2019, support for nondiscrimination protections hovered around seven in ten Americans: 69% in 2018, 70% in 2017, 72% in 2016, and 71% in 2015. The increase in support for LGBT nondiscrimination protections since 2015 has largely come among Americans of color and white mainline Protestants. White mainline Protestants and Black Americans have grown 10 percentage points more likely to favor nondiscrimination protections for LGBT Americans from 2015 to 2020 (from 73% to 82% and 65% to 75%, respectively). Multiracial Americans (from 72% to 81%), Black Protestants (from 64% to 73%), Americans ages 30 to 49 (from 73% to 81%), independents (from 73 to 78%), and Democrats (from 78% to 85%) have all become more likely to favor protections than they were in 2015.
Topic:
Religion, LGBT+, Repression, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

58. Manufacturing Moral Panic: Weaponizing Children to Undermine Gender Justice and Human Rights

Author:
Juliana Martínez, Ángela Duarte, and María Juliana Rojas
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Elevate Children Funders Group
Abstract:
This research explores how gender-restrictive groups are using child protection rhetoric to manufacture moral panic and mobilize against human rights, and how this strengthens the illiberal politics currently undermining democracies. The report’s comparative analysis of three country case studies (Bulgaria, Ghana, and Perú) underscores recurring strategies, narratives, and actors and gives insight into how gender-restrictive groups collaborate and engage in coalitional work across the globe. This significant new research includes important findings and recommendations for funders.
Topic:
Human Rights, Children, LGBT+, Gender Minorities, and Gender
Political Geography:
Bulgaria, Peru, and Ghana

59. Case Study 1. Peru: How Gender-Restrictive Groups May Lose the Legal Battle, but Win the Communications and Cultural War

Author:
Juliana Martínez, Ángela Duarte, and María Juliana Rojas
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Elevate Children Funders Group
Abstract:
Peru is the birthplace of one of Latin America’s strongest transnational gender-restrictive movements. Understanding its sociocultural and political context sheds light on the operation of gender-restrictive groups and the rise of neoconservative politics in the region. Lima is geopolitically and strategically important because it hosts the headquarters for various gender-restrictive organizations in the region, including Ceprofarena, the Office for Latin America of the Population Research Institute, Latin American Alliance for the Family, Opus Dei, and Sodalicio de la Vida Cristiana (interview with George Hale, 2020). Therefore, many strategies that instrumentalize children32 to manufacture moral panic and oppose “gender ideology” in countries such as Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, and Chile are oftentimes planned or tested in Peru, or implemented in the country after their success elsewhere. Concretely, the Don’t Mess With My Kids (DMWMK) movement33 in Peru is representative of how genderrestrictive groups instrumentalize children to threaten children’s rights, along with gender-justice, in a country with disturbing evidence of gender-based violence and intense sexism. The Peruvian case also illuminates the ways in which gender-restrictive groups identify key battlefields related to women’s and children’s issues—such as Comprehensive Sexuality Education—that they use as a toehold to advance gender-restrictive initiatives in many policy areas and at several political levels.
Topic:
Human Rights, Children, LGBT+, Gender Minorities, and Gender
Political Geography:
South America and Peru

60. Case Study 2. Bulgaria: "How Children's, Women's, and LGBT Rights Got Lost in Translation; The Development of the Most Effective Gender-Restrictive Movement in Eastern Europe

Author:
Juliana Martínez, Ángela Duarte, and María Juliana Rojas
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Elevate Children Funders Group
Abstract:
The Istanbul Convention (IC) was the first European treaty to provide a comprehensive framework to address all forms of violence against women and girls. With wide support from across the political spectrum, the EU presented it to member states for ratification in 2011. Despite the endorsement of 18 European countries, Bulgaria became the first country to decide against ratifying it in 2018. Furthermore, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court declared the treaty unconstitutional. Though this decision took many by surprise, it was the culmination of years of work by gender-restrictive groups in the country. As a member of the European Union since 2007, Bulgaria is a signatory of multiple international declarations that protect LGBT,60 women’s, children’s, and human rights. However, over the last decade—and particularly since 2018—the country has also seen the rise of well-organized gender-restrictive groups that have successfully worked to curtail the advancement of human rights and gender justice.61 Bulgaria’s rejection of the IC was the first of a series of events that jeopardized human rights by directly undermining LGBT, women’s, and children’s rights.
Topic:
Human Rights, Children, Women, LGBT+, and Gender
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, and Bulgaria