In common with the experiences of many other groups -and despite changing legal landscapes and increasing recognition within social policy of different groups' needs -LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans) people continue to face discrimination and abuse, and improving safety continues to be a key touchstone for policy makers and practitioners engaging with LGBT lives. Based on evidence from Count Me In Too, an LGBT participatory research project in Brighton & Hove, UK, the paper challenges approaches to dealing with LGBT safety that narrowly focus on reporting within a hate crime paradigm, and recognises the shift towards multi-agency approaches to LGBT safety. Our evidence shows that many LGBT people differentially recognise or do not recognise abuse, instead 'normalising' much of the abuse they experience in order to carry on with day-to-day life. By focusing on the effects of abuse and how it is dealt with by individuals and communities, rather than focusing on what constitutes abuse, we show the importance of addressing LGBT safety in ways that move beyond questions of criminal justice and the reporting of hate crime. We argue for a broader social policy framework that uses multi-agency approaches to community safety for those who experience abuse on the basis of their sexual and/or gender identities, which should attend to how safety services may provide more appropriate contexts of care and support, and which should build upon relevant knowledges within LGBT communities. Fostering solidarities among LGBT people may also empower them to work towards broader social transformation.

No abstract

This article introduces the possibilities of transnational feminist queer research as seeking to conceptualise the transnational as a methodology composed of a series of flows that can augment feminist and queer research. Transnational feminist queer methodologies can contest long-standing configurations of power between researcher and researched, subject and object, academics and activists across places, typically those which are embedded in the hierarchies of the Global North/Global South. Beginning with charting our roots in, and routes through, the diverse arenas of transnational, feminist, participatory and queer methodologies, the article uses a transcribed and edited conversation between members of the Liveable Lives research team in Kolkata and Brighton, to start an exploration of transnational feminist queer methodologies. Understanding the difficult, yet constructive moments of collaborative work and dialogue, we argue for engagements with the multiplicities of ‘many-many' lives that recognise local specificities, and the complexities of lives within transnational research, avoiding creating a currency of comparison between places. We seek to work toward methodologies that take seriously the politics of place, namely by creating research that answers the same question in different places, using methods that are created in context and may not be ‘comparable'. Using a dialogue across the boundaries of activism/academia, as well as across geographical locations, the article contends that there are potentials, as well as challenges, in thinking ourselves through transnational research praxis. This seeks complexities and spatial nuances within as well as between places

While the spatializations of social exclusion have long been critically assessed, legislative responses to these exclusions have also been found to be limited. Addressing the exclusions of Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans* and Queer people, social inclusions in the form of equalities legislations have been used as a marker of ‘progress’ and development, creating neo-colonial geographic comparisons between the legal and policy regimes of different contexts. Taking a decolonial optic, this paper shows that even in one of the most progressive legislative contexts – England – equalities legislation is differentially implemented, and indeed resisted by some local government organizations creating what we term as an implementation gap. This paper uses liveability as an understanding of the importance of recognition that does not proscribe restrictions, while also seeking ‘a life that is a life’. It works across India and the UK to create transnational thinking that seeks commonalities without negating difference, showing that liveability enables both an articulation of Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans* and Queer people’s ongoing unease in England, and a counter-narrative to reductive readings of legislative oppression in India. In both countries, liveability refuses to negate the possibilities of legislation, but neither does it become beholden to them. Liveability, it is argued, has the potential to discursively unlink a naturalized linkage between sexual sub/ab/jects and a progress/backward binary. The paper concludes that liveable lives are fluid, contingent and can be precarious even with recognition. A decolonial optic refuses to place precarity in the ‘Backward Global South’ and recognition in the ‘progressive Global North’. Instead commonalities between Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans* and Queer lives query these assumptions and associated hierarchical politics of ‘saving’ ‘backward’ nations. This has the potential to deepen demands for social justice, in ways that do not abandon legislative reforms, but go beyond them to seek lives that are ‘worth living’, including through transnational interconnections and solidarities.

No abstract

Happiness is often seen as the product of a good life, and can be attached to normative institutions such as marriage. The pursuit of happiness has been critically scrutinised, including by queer theorists and particularly Sara Ahmed who proposes a concept of aliveness. This article explores what it means to put liveability into conversation with critical engagements with happiness. Using transnational empirical material regarding what makes lives liveable for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ) people in India and the UK, we argue that this dialogue not only expands upon the existing critiques of happiness, but also rethinks liveability as a form of struggle between ‘living’ and ‘surviving’. Challenge and struggle can be central to feeling alive. This emerges most prominently when LGBTQ people feel part of a collective struggle, or when they feel others are supporting them in their individual struggle. Delinking a normative understanding of happiness from liveability brings us closer to everyday struggles as a way to chart out paths through hegemonic orders and normativities. A good life can have ‘flowers and sunshine’ but it is not necessarily, or always, happy.

Exploring liveabilities as more than survival, this commentary underscores how survival remains important in these #COVIDtimes. Discussing our privileges and resistances as queer women with various intersectionalities, we offer transnational notes on negotiating, surviving, and living in these non-normative times.

No abstract