Key considerations: LGBTQIA+-inclusive humanitarian action in the Philippines

Humanitarian crises affect diverse populations in complex ways, often exacerbating pre-existing vulnerabilities and inequalities. Among those disproportionately impacted are LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and other SOGIESC – sexual orientations, gender identities, and sex characteristics) individuals and communities. In the Philippines – a country that frequently experiences humanitarian emergencies, such as pandemics, conflict, and environmental hazards – LGBTQIA+ people face unique challenges. Both LGBTQIA+ people and the challenges they face are often overlooked in humanitarian action – from the planning stage to the implementation and evaluation of initiatives

This SSHAP Brief aims to provide local and regional non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and others involved in development and humanitarian programming in the Philippines with key considerations for addressing the complex needs of LGBTQIA+ people in humanitarian contexts. It seeks to support humanitarian actors to design and implement more effective, equitable and inclusive activities. To this end, the brief examines the social, economic and legal landscape for LGBTQIA+ groups, exploring their specific capacities and vulnerabilities during crises and offering practical guidance.

Drawing on academic and grey literature and consultations with academic, humanitarian and community experts, this brief also bridges a gap between short-term crisis response and long-term transformational change. This brief emphasises the importance of LGBTQIA+ inclusion across all phases of humanitarian action. Ultimately, it aims to contribute to building more resilient LGBTQIA+ communities and a more inclusive humanitarian sector in the Philippines.

Key considerations

• Engaging LGBTQIA+ communities throughout the humanitarian response cycle supports more effective and inclusive interventions. Humanitarian actors should aim to involve LGBTQIA+ individuals and organisations (formal and informal) in all phases, from needs assessment stage through to planning, decision-making, resourcing and implementation, while also recognising and supporting their independent contributions to humanitarian action.
• Recognising and respecting local SOGIESC identities and terminologies in the Philippines is crucial for culturally appropriate and effective humanitarian interventions. Terms like ‘bakla’ and ‘tomboy’ carry specific cultural meanings and class dimensions, while gender and sexuality are also often intertwined in the Philippines in ways that differ from international LGBTQIA+ categories.
• Recognising the expertise of local LGBTQIA+ organisations fosters more context-appropriate and effective humanitarian responses. Enabling and utilising the knowledge of local LGBTQIA+ groups can help tailor interventions to the specific needs and cultural contexts of diverse SOGIESC individuals in the Philippines.
• Integrating LGBTQIA+ support into existing services may be more resource-efficient and less stigmatising than creating separate programmes. For instance, ensuring gender-based violence programmes are equipped to support LGBTQIA+ survivors can broaden the reach of existing services.
• Addressing intersectional needs within LGBTQIA+ communities encourages more comprehensive and equitable humanitarian responses. Recognising that LGBTQIA+ individuals may also belong to other marginalised groups (e.g., people with disabilities) can help in designing more inclusive interventions.
• Prioritising safety and confidentiality in humanitarian responses can encourage LGBTQIA+ individuals to access services. Implementing robust data protection measures, discreet communication and secure referral pathways helps safeguard LGBTQIA+ individuals in contexts where they may face discrimination or violence.
• Adapting communication and outreach strategies for LGBTQIA+ inclusion in hostile environments improves access to humanitarian assistance. Using discreet methods to signal inclusion without risking individuals’ safety can help reach vulnerable LGBTQIA+ populations.
• Revising internal organisational policies and practices to be LGBTQIA+ inclusive enhances overall humanitarian response effectiveness. Regular gender sensitivity training for staff and partners, and involving LGBTQIA+ individuals in policy reviews, can foster a more inclusive organisational culture.
• Building partnerships with local LGBTQIA+ organisations strengthens the capacity and reach of humanitarian responses. Providing funding and resources for humanitarian work initiated by LGBTQIA+ networks can support more targeted and effective interventions.
• Investing in research on LGBTQIA+ vulnerabilities and resilience in humanitarian contexts informs more effective response strategies. Supporting studies specific to the Philippine context can provide valuable insights for tailoring humanitarian actions.
• Balancing immediate humanitarian needs with advocacy for long-term systemic change contributes to sustainable improvements for LGBTQIA+ communities. Furthermore, enabling grassroots leadership by LGBTQIA+ communities to guide and shape how aid and ongoing support is deployed ensures these efforts more effectively address the felt and expressed needs of these groups, and helps to bridge short-term assistance with longer-term positive change.
• Adapting humanitarian approaches to respond to local legal and cultural frameworks helps improve acceptance and effectiveness of LGBTQIA+-inclusive interventions. Recognising that effective strategies may vary between different settings in the Philippines can lead to more context-appropriate responses. Meanwhile, advocating for broader legal reforms (e.g., recognition of same-sex relationships, protection from discrimination) can enhance protection of the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals.
• Implementing meaningful monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and activities supports continuous improvement of LGBTQIA+-inclusive humanitarian action and longer-term change. Regularly gathering feedback from LGBTQIA+ individuals and organisations, combined with monitoring processes and outcomes – and adjusting practices accordingly – can foster inclusion over time.

Understanding LGBTQIA+ identities and terminologies

The gendered dimensions of humanitarian emergencies have long been problematised, especially in relation to gaps in addressing women’s vulnerabilities during natural disasters, epidemics and wars.¹ While this has led to mainstreaming the gender lens in disaster risk reduction (DRR), the gender perspective on humanitarian emergencies remains rooted in binary systems and notions of gender.²

These binary systems and notions are based on rigid assumptions that everyone’s gender can be categorised as either male/man or female/woman, and that this is determined at birth according to their sex characteristics, particularly their external genitalia (i.e., whether they have a penis or a vulva). Furthermore, the gender binary also assumes that men and women are all heterosexual – that is, they are always attracted to the opposite sex.

In reality, however, sex, gender, and sexuality are much more complex, and people come with a diverse array and combinations of different sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). These terms are further unpacked below (see also the ‘Genderbread Person’ in Figure 1.).

Sex characteristics

Sex, or sex characteristics, refer to an individual’s biological makeup, including physiological, anatomical and genetic traits.³ Primary sex characteristics include an individual’s external genitalia, internal reproductive organs (e.g., gonads), hormones, and chromosomes. Secondary sex characteristics include physical traits that develop over puberty (e.g., Adam’s apple, breasts, etc.).

Based upon these sex characteristics, an individual can be categorised as male, female, or intersex. Intersex refers to people whose sex characteristics do not fall neatly into the female or male category.⁴ When a person is born, medical professionals, such as physicians and midwives, categorise these individuals according to their sex characteristics (i.e., sex assigned at birth).

However, because there are natural variations in the ways that sex characteristics manifest, using a binary model for sex (i.e., male and female only) can result in a person being incorrectly categorised. These experiences underscore the difference between a person’s sex characteristics and the sex they are assigned at birth.

Gender identity and expression

Although sex has historically been understood as interchangeable with gender, gender itself differs according to social and cultural norms. As such, gender can be understood as a social category encompassing an individual’s self-conception, experiences and behaviours (i.e., gender identity and expression), as well as the socio-cultural norms and expectations of how individuals are expected to behave and present themselves in the society they live in. Gender identity is based on an individual’s sense of self and life experiences. Individuals whose sex assigned at birth aligns with the gender identity they are expected to take on are cisgender (‘cis’ for short) while individuals whose sex assigned at birth does not align with their gender identity are transgender (‘trans’ for short). For instance, someone assigned male at birth but is a woman may identify as a trans woman. However, not everyone identifies as either a man or a woman; these individuals are non-binary.

Gender expression refers to how individuals externally present themselves, including their behaviours, their clothing and even their names. An individual’s gender expression may be feminine, masculine, or androgynous, which can be a combination of both feminine and masculine. Gender expression is informed by social and cultural norms and expectations; when an individual’s gender expression matches socio-cultural norms around their gender identity (i.e., a man presenting and behaving masculinely), their expression can be considered gender conforming. On the other hand, when someone’s gender expression deviates from socio-cultural expectations around the individual’s gender identity (e.g., a man acting effeminately), their gender expression can be considered gender non-conforming.

Sexual orientation

Although sex and gender are related to sexuality, they often do not align with usual societal expectations. An individual’s sexual orientation refers to their emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to an individual of the opposite gender identity (i.e., heterosexual), the same gender identity (i.e., lesbian/gay), or regardless of gender identity (i.e., pansexual). Bisexual refers to people attracted to individuals of both the same and opposite gender identity, while asexual (sometimes shortened to ‘ace’) refers to individuals who experience little to no emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to anyone. Queer, on the other hand, is an umbrella term that can refer to the LGBTQIA+ community as a whole or, more generally, individuals whose SOGIESC does not conform to socio-cultural norms and expectations.

Intersectionality and SOGIESC

While understanding individual aspects of SOGIESC is important, it is also important to recognise these characteristics do not exist in isolation. The concept of intersectionality helps us understand how SOGIESC identities interact with other aspects of a person’s life and social position. This means that – as in other groups – diverse cross-sections of people are found within LGBTQIA+ populations. Such cross-sections include characteristics of (dis)ability, age, ethnicity/race, sex, indigenous or minority status, socio-economic or caste status, language, religion or belief, political opinion, national origin, migration history or status, marital and/or parental status, urban/rural location, property ownership status and more.

People’s different combinations of these characteristics and the contexts and circumstances in which they live shape their experiences in unique ways. One way to think about this is that it may shape their degree of power, privilege, or by contrast, marginality (see Figure 2.). Given this complexity, it is essential to understand SOGIESC identities within their specific cultural, social and historical contexts.

Contextualising diverse SOGIESC

The terminologies described above are useful for understanding sex, gender, and sexuality. However, they are not necessarily universal. To best understand sex, gender, and sexuality, they need to be understood and interpreted within their socio-cultural, political, historical, material, and environmental contexts (see Box 1.). This means people’s identities, experiences, behaviours and expressions can vary greatly depending on where they live, and are shaped by many variables – such as those listed below.

• Cultural and social norms: Different societies may have unique understandings of gender roles and expressions.
• Political and legal climate: Laws and policies can influence how people with diverse SOGIESC are recognised and treated.
• Social environment: Family structures, education systems, and community attitudes play a role in shaping identities.
• Economic factors: Access to resources and economic opportunities can impact how people express their identities.
• Religious or spiritual beliefs: Various faith traditions may influence perceptions of gender and sexuality.
• Geographical location: Urban versus rural settings, or different regions within a country, may have distinct attitudes, traditions, and norms surrounding gender and sexuality.
• Language: The words and concepts available in a language can shape how people think about and express their identities.

Box 1. Understanding SOGIESC beyond western frameworks 

Source: Author’s own.

SOGIESC in the Philippines

In many western contexts, gender and sexuality are often thought of as separate things and with clear divisions between categories.^2,3 By contrast, gender and sexuality in the Philippines, as in many contexts,⁷ are understood to be much more intertwined.⁸ To illustrate, lalaki in the Philippines is commonly used to refer to a man – but further implies a masculine man who is attracted to women. As such, a gay Filipino man would not necessarily identify with nor be referred to as lalaki; instead, they may be called bakla, which is understood to refer to effeminate Filipino gay men who are attracted to other men, usually masculine men.

Furthermore, gender and sexuality in the Philippines also have class dimensions.⁹ While gay, lesbian, and bisexual are becoming more visible and accessible identity categories, identification with local terminologies such as bakla and ‘tomboy’ have been commonly observed among Filipinos from lower income groups.¹⁰ Furthermore, it is important to understand that these terms can change meaning depending on the specific context in which they are used. For instance, among Filipino male sex workers, lalaki can be used to refer to a male sex worker who provides services to both gay men and heterosexual women, while bakla is used for male sex workers who are gay and solely provide services to other gay men.⁶

Taken together, gender and sexuality are complex – and thus complicated – dimensions of human behaviour and experience. As such, binary systems and understandings of gender and sexuality overly simplify and fail to fully capture the richness of human experience. In the context of humanitarian emergencies, this oversimplification can lead to overlooking the vulnerabilities of individuals and communities as well. For the LGBTQIA+ community, research has shown that their vulnerabilities and capacities in humanitarian emergencies stem from long-standing exclusion and discrimination in social systems and institutions while their contributions to society are often either ignored or minimised.

Experiences and challenges of LGBTQIA+ people in the Philippines

LGBTQIA+ communities in the Philippines are disproportionately vulnerable to poor health and social outcomes due to systemic and everyday prejudice, stigma, and discrimination based on their SOGIESC.¹¹ Over the years, violence and harassment targeting LGBTQIA+ Filipinos, especially trans Filipinos, have increasingly been documented by academics and the media.^12,13 LGBTQIA+ Filipinos also face substantial barriers to accessing public goods and services, such as education, employment, and healthcare. This means they are often more vulnerable to negative social, economic and health outcomes both in day-to-day life and, thus, when acute crises strike as well. These inequities are legitimised and reinforced through ‘weaponised religious freedom’¹⁴ among both policymakers and civil society groups who leverage moral-spiritual values based on Catholic and Judeo-Christian doctrines. These doctrines were violently introduced to the country through centuries of colonisation under Spain and the United States.¹⁵

In the following sections, we offer examples of key experiences of SOGIESC-based discrimination, harassment, and violence. However, we also underscore the need to further contextualise such experiences at the community level, given that the Philippines is a socio-culturally and geopolitically diverse country. Furthermore, while we present experiences across LGBTQIA+ individuals, we also acknowledge that experiences of discrimination may not be the same or equally experienced within the LGBTQIA+ community, highlighting the need for gender-specific interventions as well.¹⁶

Invisibility in the educational system. In the Philippines, many LGBTQIA+ students have experienced discrimination in educational settings – ranging from interpersonal harassment and bullying enabled by both teachers and students¹⁷ to expulsion from schools.¹² Even when they are able to attend school, information relevant to their experiences and needs as LGBTQIA+ individuals, is largely missing from the curriculum. For instance, in terms of health education, LGBTQIA+-specific and -responsive topics are absent from the country’s comprehensive sexual education curriculum.¹⁸ As a result, LGBTQIA+ Filipino students navigate the Internet for this information without support or supervision to access information relevant to their needs.¹⁷

Double standards in employment. Many LGBTQIA+ Filipinos, especially trans and gender non-conforming Filipinos, have faced barriers to employment (e.g., hiring and promotion) due to informal discriminatory practices, particularly when they do not present themselves according to their sex assigned at birth.¹¹ If LGBTQIA+ Filipinos are hired, they are often expected to perform twice as well than their heterosexual peers and consistently excel at their jobs while taking on additional socio-emotional tasks (e.g., being the life of the party).¹⁹ Some LGBTQIA+ Filipinos take on the role of breadwinners in their households. In these cases, their economic contribution can lead to conditional acceptance by family members.¹⁰ This dynamic suggests that in some parts of contemporary Philippine society, LGBTQIA+ individuals may be valued primarily for their economic productivity rather than being unconditionally accepted for who they are.

Unresponsive healthcare systems. Health and medical education in the Philippines have not been responsive to LGBTQIA+-specific health needs.¹⁸ As such, healthcare providers are not fully equipped with the knowledge and skills to effectively respond to the needs of LGBTQIA+ patients.¹⁶ This is further complicated by the pathologising and stigmatising approach to non-normative gender and sexuality in public health and medicine,²⁰ and in clinical psychology.²¹ Taking these contexts together, LGBTQIA+ patients have not only been at the receiving end of ineffectual care, but of harassment and discrimination perpetrated by healthcare providers themselves. In the Philippines, the unresponsiveness of the formal healthcare system has motivated trans communities to disengage, pushing them further into the margins as they navigate alternative and precarious pathways to care (i.e., unregulated/unsupervised sources of health information and commodities).²²

Precarious legal and policy contexts. Part and parcel of the precarity of being LGBTQIA+ in the Philippines is the lack of comprehensive legislation at the national level to protect these communities from SOGIESC-based discrimination. While some local governments have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances (city or municipal-level legislation), these measures have significant limitations. Their implementation varies across localities,¹³ and their jurisdiction is restricted to the boundaries of those local areas. At the national level, the Safe Spaces Act (Republic Act No. 11313) offers some protection as it prohibits gender-based sexual harassment and includes within this transphobic and homophobic statements and slurs – or speech that is intended to denigrate, harm, intimidate, or discriminate against LGBTQIA+ individuals and communities. Nevertheless, SOGIESC-based discrimination, harassment, and violence remains rampant and deeply rooted in the social structures of the Philippines. Without comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation at the national level, regional and local state agencies as well as the private sector, including NGOs, lack the legal impetus to adopt and implement anti-discrimination policies in their own professions, states and workplaces.

LGBTQIA+ people in humanitarian contexts

Unfortunately, there is limited research on the impacts of crises on people with diverse SOGIESC. There is also limited guidance for meaningful inclusion of these populations in humanitarian action, including in the Philippines. However, existing evidence points to a range of common challenges faced by these groups across many contexts. Awareness of these challenges, which are outlined below, is a good starting point to design and implement more inclusive approaches.

Common challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ people in humanitarian crises

Loss of shelter and safe spaces. While loss of homes and community spaces affects many people during disasters – particularly extreme weather or geological events as common in the Philippines – LGBTQIA+ people face additional dimensions of vulnerability related to this loss. Personal homes, and queer-led or -’friendly’ community centres, businesses or other physical spaces may be the only places LGBTQIA+ people feel and are safe from discrimination and violence. Losing such spaces endangers them not only in the same ways as other population groups, but also in exposing them to greater risk of additional harms.²³ For trans people, homes also provide private spaces and essential resources (such as specific clothing, makeup, or medical supplies) that help them express their gender identity in ways that feel authentic and comfortable to them. Losing access to these resources can significantly impact their sense of self, well-being and overall mental health.²⁴

Disruption of critical social networks. Compounding the loss of LGBTQIA+-friendly physical spaces, formal and informal LGBTQIA+ social networks may be disrupted through the damage, destruction or loss of communication channels, infrastructure and devices (e.g., phones and internet). This may cut queer people off from critical sources of material and psychosocial support and safety normally provided by ‘chosen family’ or wider LGBTQIA+ community networks.^25,26

Compromised access to LGBTQIA+-specific healthcare. LGBTQIA+ people have the same healthcare needs as other groups – i.e., quality and accessible general preventative and curative care. Loss or disruption of these care services can have significant impacts on health and well-being among these groups, which are often disproportionately impacted by acute and chronic health conditions.²⁷ However, people with diverse SOGIESC may also have additional needs that are more likely to be neglected during crisis response. For example, in the Philippines, LGBTQIA+ communities are more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS because of the stigma towards both LGBTQIA+ groups and to HIV/AIDS.^28,29 Thus, disruption to the continuity of HIV/AIDS care during emergencies will disproportionately impact these groups. Disruption to gender affirming care, including hormone replacement therapy and trans-responsive psychosocial services, can also have significant negative psychological and mental health impacts on trans individuals.³⁰ Intersex Filipinos remain invisible or are considered ‘abnormal’ throughout the Philippine healthcare system, sometimes even being forced to undergo unnecessary surgical interventions without their consent.³¹

Exacerbated discrimination and violence. In contexts across the world, LGBTQIA+ people endure discrimination even during ‘normal’ periods. Crises and disasters can exacerbate this, leading to increased risk of physical and mental harm including abuse, violence (including sexual violence), and systemic exclusion from support and assistance. For instance, they may be blamed by other groups for ‘bringing on’ crises by simply existing, as occurred in many countries during COVID-19.³²

Loss of income-generating opportunities and protection. People with diverse SOGIESC are more likely to engage in informal economic activities,³³ as they often face discrimination within education and in formal economic opportunities.³⁴ These informal livelihoods often provide only a hand-to-mouth existence and are also more likely to be wiped out during a disaster. This leaves people with diverse SOGIESC working in informal sectors without any safety net protections to fall back on, in contrast to formal sector workers who are more likely to be provided with compensation. This increased economic desperation may put many queer people at risk of exploitation.

LGBTQIA+ exclusion in humanitarian action

Exclusion of people with diverse SOGIESC can happen in several ways. A common way is a lack of explicit measures for their inclusion. Humanitarian programmes are often designed to be ‘universal’ – and are thus framed as being inclusive of LGBTQIA+ people – even if they are not in practice. If humanitarian practitioners recognise that these populations have specific needs, they often cite challenges to addressing them. These include a lack of appropriate expertise, training and LGBTQIA+-specific data, as well as insufficient resources.³⁵

Alternatively, LGBTQIA+ people may be explicitly excluded from assistance or even actively abused due to discriminatory attitudes of people involved in humanitarian response including government officials, security personnel, heath workers and others. For example, gay men were overtly discriminated against and excluded from post-emergency work programmes in the Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan.³⁰ Some additional ways in which LGBTQIA+ people may be implicitly or explicitly excluded include:

Lack of recognition of queer relationships. Humanitarian responses – and the legal and institutional frameworks which shape them – often fail to recognise non-heterosexual relationships, leading to exclusion. For instance, in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lesbian couple was denied food and economic aid by local government officials because they were not considered a ‘family’.³⁶ This lack of recognition can have severe consequences, not only in terms of material support but also in medical decision-making during emergencies. The absence of legal recognition for same-sex partnerships or chosen families can lead to denied or delayed medical care in crisis situations, further compromising the wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ individuals.³⁷

Binary gender-specific support, services and care. Humanitarian aid distribution and support services often rely on binary gender categories, excluding LGBTQIA+ individuals whose identities do not fit these categories or match their official documents. For instance, the Aravanis, a third gender group in Tamil Nadu, were denied aid after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami due to lack of official recognition.³⁸ Similar exclusions have been documented elsewhere, with trans and non-binary people denied aid due to gender-specific distribution policies and document discrepancies.^25,38 During the COVID-19 pandemic, ‘gender quarantines‘ in parts of Latin America restricted movement for those not conforming to binary gender norms.³³ Beyond aid distribution, binary-focused services can prevent LGBTQIA+ people from accessing critical healthcare or using facilities like toilets safely.³⁰

Unsafe emergency shelter and accommodation. Emergency shelters and temporary accommodations in humanitarian settings often present significant safety risks for LGBTQIA+ individuals. These spaces, intended for refuge, can instead become sites of discrimination and abuse. LGBTQIA+ people frequently face harassment in gender-segregated shelters, toilets, and sanitation facilities.³⁸ In some cases, the risks are severe; following the 2011 Haitian earthquake, lesbians, bisexual women, and trans and intersex individuals suffered gender-based violence and ‘corrective rape‘ in temporary shelters.³⁰ Similar patterns of increased violence, including sexual violence, have been observed in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps.²⁵ These dangers are compounded by discriminatory attitudes from humanitarian staff and other shelter residents.³⁹ Consequently, many LGBTQIA+ individuals may avoid official post-disaster shelters despite needing safe housing.³⁰ In some cases, LGBTQIA+ individuals may even face increased risk of domestic violence when forced to return to unsupportive family homes during crises.⁴⁰

Fear of engaging with humanitarian response. LGBTQIA+ individuals often hesitate to engage with humanitarian efforts due to well-founded fears of discrimination, violence, and being outed. Trans individuals, for instance, may avoid services due to fear of transphobia,²³ while others worry about being outed or facing public shaming in emergency shelters.³⁰ During the COVID-19 pandemic in Sri Lanka, many LGBTQIA+ people avoided aid registration altogether, fearing police brutality.³³ Distrust of security actors like police can extend to official aid efforts, especially those involving government agencies.⁴¹ The fear of increased visibility can lead many to worry that engaging with humanitarian responses – including data collection efforts – may expose them to violence in the short-term, but also through future persecution.⁴¹ Cultural factors and internalised stigma can also play a role in holding some LGBTQIA+ people back from seeking assistance, as they may be reluctant to disclose their identities due to shame or fear of violating cultural norms.⁴²

Intersectional challenges. As noted earlier, people with diverse SOGIESC are by definition, diverse – and not a monolithic group. Sub-groups and individuals face unique challenges – and/or relative advantages – resulting from combinations of their specific characteristics and circumstances^35,40 that will shape their vulnerability during an emergency. For example, wealthy LGBTQIA+ people are much less likely to be vulnerable to many of the above described challenges, while some studies suggest that trans people may be most at risk of discrimination, exclusion and violence.^23,43 Additional challenges aside from those arising due to discrimination based on someone’s SOGIESC – such as being excluded for being part of an ethnic minority group, or living in a community where religious norms demonise LGBTQIA+ people – can compound and exacerbate this vulnerability.

To give another example, LGBTQIA+ people with disabilities may face discrimination on account of both their SOGIESC and their disabled status and may find it difficult to find appropriate support and assistance (see Box 2.).

Box 2. Intersectionality of LGBTQIA+ identity and disability

Source: Authors’ own.

Good practice in LGBTQIA+-inclusive humanitarian action

While evidence of successful LGBTQIA+-inclusive practices in humanitarian settings remains limited, and despite the many challenges faced by humanitarian actors to address the needs of these groups, there are emerging examples of good practices from various contexts. Some examples, along with broader principles derived from research and experience are outlined below. They can help guide humanitarian actors in the Philippines and beyond to develop more inclusive approaches. However, it is important to ensure that any responses are adapted for the specific contexts and conditions in which they will be delivered.

Inclusive and safe needs assessment and communication. In northern Nigeria, a humanitarian organisation implemented sensitive practices for LGBTQIA+ displaced individuals. They developed tailored questions to capture LGBTQIA+-specific concerns. When communicating with the community, they explicitly welcomed anyone who felt they might be ‘different’ from others, promising confidentiality. This approach created a more inclusive environment and signalled safety to LGBTQIA+ individuals. When engaging with initially resistant local government and health workers, the organisation emphasised humanitarian principles and public health priorities to promote LGBTQIA+ inclusion and build support among key stakeholders.

Creating safe spaces and support networks. Following the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, the Blue Diamond Society created physical safe spaces by organising camps and food preparation specifically for LGBTQIA+ community members.³⁸ This approach recognised the unique vulnerabilities and needs of LGBTQIA+ individuals in the aftermath of a disaster.

Providing specialised mental health support. In Fiji, the organisation Youth Champs 4 Mental Health acted as first responders during disasters, distributing aid to LGBTQIA+ sex workers and offering mental health services tailored to their needs.³⁸ This example highlights the importance of addressing both immediate physical needs and long-term mental health concerns.

Adapting existing programmes for LGBTQIA+ inclusion. In Lebanon, the Women’s Refugee Commission adapted its services for trans women refugees in Beirut. They provided information on available services, created safe meeting spaces, and facilitated art and drama group therapy sessions specifically for trans women.³⁸ This demonstrates how existing programmes can be modified to be more inclusive without necessarily requiring substantial additional resources.

Innovative housing solutions. An NGO in Kenya implemented a scattered-site housing programme for LGBTQIA+ refugees, providing greater anonymity and safety compared to traditional refugee camps or shelters.³⁸ This approach addressed the unique security concerns of LGBTQIA+ individuals in this setting.

Capacity building and partnerships. OutRight Action International offered emergency funds to LGBTQIA+ organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic.³⁸ This example shows how international organisations can support local LGBTQIA+-led initiatives, building their capacity to respond effectively to crises.

Principles for good practice

The following principles, derived from research and practical experience, can guide humanitarian actors in developing more inclusive approaches for LGBTQIA+ individuals. While not exhaustive, these principles provide a framework for beginning to design and implement more effective and equitable humanitarian responses, adapted for specific contexts. The actions under each of the five principles demonstrate what this could look like in practice.

1.    Inclusive planning, engagement and co-production

• Meaningfully engaging with LGBTQIA+ communities in all phases of humanitarian action from needs assessment through to planning (including anticipatory action planning), decision-making, resourcing and implementation;
• Recognising, utilising and enabling the expertise of local LGBTQIA+ organisations to lead when and where appropriate, and recognising their contributions;
  • For instance, the oftentimes invisible care work that LGBTQIA+ individuals engage in should be acknowledged and supported by humanitarian actors;^45,46
• Developing LGBTQIA+-specific support and services, or integrating them into existing services;
  • For example, establishing LGBTQIA+-friendly shelters and support systems or ensuring existing gender-based violence programmes are equipped to support LGBTQIA+ survivors;
• Recognising diversity within LGBTQIA+ communities and addressing the intersectional needs of different sub-groups and individuals;
  • For example, adaptations for LGBTQIA+ people with disabilities.

2.    Safety and confidentiality

• Utilising discreet methods to communicate with and include queer people in humanitarian assistance in LGBTQIA+-hostile environments;
• Implementing safe and ethical data collection practices including ways to infer needs when direct data collection is not safe or possible;
• Developing secure referral pathways for LGBTQIA+ people to access services safely;
• Ensuring safe built environments in humanitarian contexts such as well-lit pathways and toilets to mitigate abuse and violence against LGBTQIA+ people;
• Implementing robust data protection measures to safeguard identities and information of LGBTQIA+ people;
• Revising internal organisational practices and policies to be LGBTQIA+-inclusive and -responsive. For example, this could include:
  • Integrating SOGIESC-based discrimination and harassment in internal anti-discrimination policies;
  • Regular gender sensitivity training for project, organisation and administrative staff, and community partners;
  • Involving LGBTQIA+ people or organisations in reviewing and updating institutional practices and policies.

3.    Capacity building and partnerships

• Identifying, collaborating and building partnerships with local formal and informal LGBTQIA+ organisations and networks;
• Providing funding and resources for humanitarian work initiated or implemented by LGBTQIA+ networks and organisations;
• Facilitating knowledge exchange among and between LGBTQIA+ organisations and traditional humanitarian actors to learn from each other and co-produce good practice;
• Conducting and supporting research on LGBTQIA+ vulnerabilities and resilience in humanitarian contexts;
• Providing training for humanitarian staff, local government officials, health professionals, and community leaders on LGBTQIA+ inclusion;
• Ensuring inclusive vulnerability and capacity assessments sensitive to people with diverse SOGIESC.

4.     Long-term impact and systemic change

• Identifying quick wins for immediate humanitarian action while also working towards longer-term strategies for systemic change to address underlying vulnerabilities;
  • Acknowledging the needs and capabilities of LGBTQIA+ communities not only during crises (i.e., implementation) but also during preparedness, planning and evaluation phases of humanitarian action;
• Facilitating engagements with and support for LGBTQIA+ communities that address other forms of inequities and vulnerabilities that compound those specific to humanitarian settings (e.g., discrimination in healthcare and educational systems). Supporting the policy and practice priorities of LGBTQIA+ communities, such as those that address discrimination and exclusion in society, including humanitarian settings. For example, this could include:
  • Allowing LGBTQIA+ organisations to design and decide how humanitarian aid and support can be used to address the expressed needs of their communities;
  • Engaging with LGBTQIA+ communities to identify policy priorities and shared or intersecting goals and aspirations;
  • Advocating for legal protections against SOGIESC-based discrimination at various levels of government, ensuring that provisions specific to humanitarian settings are included;
• Continuously engaging with influential actors both within and beyond humanitarian action, such as faith actors, to advocate and collaborate for change.

5.      Context-specific adaptation and continuous improvement

• Adapting inclusive services to fit within local legal, socio-economic, spatial and cultural frameworks;
• Recognising effective strategies may vary between different settings and remaining open to the need to adapt;
• Implementing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and responding to needs and issues as they are identified, via for example, the following mechanisms:
  • Gather feedback from LGBTQIA+ individuals and organisations;
  • Track processes and outcomes through quantitative and qualitative approaches;
  • Regularly review and update practices based on lessons learned.

LGBTQIA+ networks, resources and tools in the Philippines

Below is a list of LGBTQIA+ organisations and networks that humanitarian actors can approach and aim to build meaningful relationships with to ensure humanitarian activities are more inclusive of people with diverse SOGIESC across the Philippines. Also highlighted are additional resources and tools that humanitarian actors can utilise and draw on to support their activities to be more inclusive.

Philippines LGBTQIA+ organisations and initiatives

1. Lagablab LGBT Network (LGBTQIA+ organisational network)

Website: https://lagablab.org/

Contact: [email protected]

2. Babaylanes Inc. (LGBTQIA+ youth organisation)

Website: https://babaylanes.org/

Contact: [email protected]

3. PANTAY (LGBTQIA+ organisation focused on anti-discrimination and gender transformative legislation)

Website: https://www.pantay.org/

Contact: [email protected]

4. Gayon CARES Inc. (Bicol-based LGBTQIA+ organisation that works with local government units)

Contact: [email protected]

5. San Julian Pride Advocacy Group Inc. (Eastern Samar-based LGBTQIA+ organisation with DRR projects)

Website: https://www.facebook.com/SanJulianPride/

Contact: [email protected]

6. Initiatives and Movement for Gender Liberation Against Discrimination – IMGLAD (Mindanao-based LGBTQIA+ organisation involved in peace-building)

Website: https://www.imglad.org/about

Contact: [email protected]

LGBQTIA+-focused resources for humanitarian responders

• SOGIESC Primer by UP (University of the Philippines) Center for Women’s and Gender Studies: https://cws.up.edu.ph/?p=2441
• 2021 SOGIESC and Migration Training Package by IOM and UNHCR (focus on migrants but with relevance to other situations): https://www.iom.int/2021-sogiesc-and-migration-training-package
• Gender and Sexual Minorities in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Reference Guide by GRRIPP: https://www.grripp.net/reference-guide-ii-gender-and-sexuality
• LGBTQ-Inclusive Data Collection: A Lifesaving Imperative by Human Rights Campaign Foundation: https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC-LGBTQ-DataCollection-Report.pdf
• Gender-Inclusive and Gender-Specific Approaches in Trans Health Research (including decision tree): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34993295/
• Global Toolkit for Change: Assessing LGBTQI+ Inclusion in Your Workplace by Out & Equal: https://outandequal.org/global-toolkit-for-change-assessing-lgbtqi-inclusion-in-your-workplace/
• Archive of LGBTQIA+ Research in the Philippines by UP Rainbow Research Hub: https://rainbowresearchhub.up.edu.ph/resources/
• Archive of LGBTQIA+ Resources in the Philippines by balangaw.ph: https://www.balangaw.ph/resources
• Simple Methods Of Monitoring And Evaluating For LGBTQI Advocates Everywhere by MPact Global Action: https://mpactglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MPact-Evaluation_Toolkit_6_spreads.pdf

References

1. Fothergill, A. (1996). The neglect of gender in disaster work: An overview of the literature. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14.
2. Gaillard, J. c., Sanz, K., Balgos, B. C., Dalisay, S. N. M., Gorman-Murray, A., Smith, F., & Toelupe, V. (2017). Beyond men and women: A critical perspective on gender and disaster. Disasters, 41(3), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12209
3. Lorber, J. (1996). Beyond the Binaries: Depolarizing the Categories of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender. Sociological Inquiry, 66(2), 143–159.
4. Morland, I. (2014). Intersex. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1–2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2399470
5. Johansson, S. (2022). The issue of inclusion: A postcolonial analysis of “non-local” humanitarian actors advocacy for SOGI inclusive humanitarian efforts in “SOGI hostile” states [Upsalla University]. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-479759
6. Hernandez, L. I., & Imperial, R. H. (2009). Men-who-have-Sex-with-other-Males (MSM) in the Philippines – Identities, Sexualities and Social Mobilities: A Formative Assessment of HIV and AIDS Vulnerabilities. Acta Medica Philippina, 43(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.47895/amp.v43i3.5077
7. Saleh, F. (2020). Transgender as a Humanitarian Category: The Case of Syrian Queer and Gender-Variant Refugees in Turkey. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 7(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-7914500
8. Yarcia, L. E., de Vela, T. C., & Tan, M. L. (2019). Queer Identity and Gender-Related Rights in Post-Colonial Philippines. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 20(1), 265–275.
9. Presto, A. C. (2020). Revisiting Intersectional Identities: Voices of Poor Bakla Youth in Rural Philippines. Review of Women’s Studies, 29(2), 113–146.
10. Ceperiano, A. M., Jr, E. C. S., Alonzo, D. C. P., & Ofreneo, M. A. P. (2016). “Girl, Bi, Bakla, Tomboy”: The Intersectionality of Sexuality, Gender, and Class in Urban Poor Contexts. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 5–34.
11. UNDP, & USAID. (2014). Being LGBT in Asia: The Philippine Country Report. https://www.undp.org/publications/being-lgbt-asia-philippine-country-report
12. Abesamis, L. E. A. (2024). Behavioural responses to SOGIE-based harassment among university students: A qualitative study on bystander intervention in the Philippines. Psychology & Sexuality, 15(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2023.2241863
13. Abesamis, L. E. A., & Alibudbud, R. (2024). From the bathroom to a national discussion of LGBTQ+ rights: A case of discrimination in the Philippines. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 28(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2023.2251775
14. Cornelio, J., & Dagle, R. C. M. (2019). Weaponising Religious Freedom: Same-Sex Marriage and Gender Equality in the Philippines. Religion & Human Rights, 14(2), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-13021146
15. Abesamis, L. E. A. (2022). Intersectionality and the invisibility of transgender health in the Philippines. Global Health Research and Policy, 7(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-022-00269-9
16. Restar, A. J., Chan, R. C. H., Adia, A., Quilantang, M. I., Nazareno, J., Hernandez, L., Cu-Uvin, S., & Operario, D. (2020). Prioritizing HIV Services for Transgender Women and Men Who Have Sex With Men in Manila, Philippines: An Opportunity for HIV Provider Interventions. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 31(4), 405. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNC.0000000000000131
17. Thoreson, R. R. (2017). ‘Just let us be’—Discrimination against LGBT students in the Philippines. Human Rights Watch.
18. Abesamis, L. E. A., & Siddayao, K. V. (2021). Queering Sexual Education in the Philippines: Policy and Program Implications for Filipino LGBTQ+ Youth. Review of Women’s Studies, 31(2), 1–28.
19. David, E. (2015). Purple-Collar Labor: Transgender Workers and Queer Value at Global Call Centers in the Philippines. Gender & Society, 29(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214558868
20. Miller, L. R., & Grollman, E. A. (2015). The Social Costs of Gender Nonconformity for Transgender Adults: Implications for Discrimination and Health. Sociological Forum, 30(3), 809–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12193
21. Drescher, J. (2015). Queer diagnoses revisited: The past and future of homosexuality and gender diagnoses in DSM and ICD. International Review of Psychiatry, 27(5), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1053847
22. Abesamis, L. E. A. (2024). Transgender Health Dilemmas: An Intersectional Analysis of the Therapeutic Itineraries of Transgender Communities in the Philippines. Journal of Homosexuality, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2024.2378772
23. Gorman-Murray, A., McKinnon, S., Dominey-Howes, D., Nash, C. J., & Bolton, R. (2018). Listening and learning: Giving voice to trans experiences of disasters. Gender, Place & Culture, 25(2), 166–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1334632
24. Gorman-Murray, A., McKinnon, S., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2014). Queer Domicide: LGBT Displacement and Home Loss in Natural Disaster Impact, Response, and Recovery. Home Cultures, 11(2), 237–261. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174214X13891916944751
25. International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, & SEROvie. (n.d.). The Impact of the Earthquake, and Relief and Recovery Programs on Haitian LGBT People. International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved 31 July 2024, from https://www.iglhrc.org/sites/default/files/504-1.pdf
26. Greener, C. (2024). Two years at the forefront: Exploring the needs and experiences of women-led, women’s rights, and LGBTQIA+ led organizations two years into the Ukraine humanitarian response. Oxfam International. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/two-years-forefront-exploring-needs-and-experiences-women-led-womens-rights-and-lgbtqia
27. Diaz-Thomas, A. M., Golden, S. H., Dabelea, D. M., Grimberg, A., Magge, S. N., Safer, J. D., Shumer, D. E., & Stanford, F. C. (2023). Endocrine Health and Health Care Disparities in the Pediatric and Sexual and Gender Minority Populations: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 108(7), 1533–1584. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad124
28. Ofreneo, M. A. P., & Canoy, N. (2017). Falling into poverty: The intersectionality of meanings of HIV among overseas Filipino workers and their families: Culture, Health & Sexuality: Vol 19, No 10. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(10), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1294261
29. Adia, A. C., Bermudez, A. N. C., Callahan, M. W., Hernandez, L. I., Imperial, R. H., & Operario, D. (2018). “An Evil Lurking Behind You”: Drivers, Experiences, and Consequences of HIV–Related Stigma Among Men Who Have Sex With Men With HIV in Manila, Philippines. AIDS Education and Prevention, 30(4). https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2018.30.4.322
30. Seglah, H. A., & Blanchard, K. (2023). Housing, disasters and LGBTQIA+ people. DRR Dynamics. https://irp.cdn-website.com/cde3424c/files/uploaded/Housing%2C%20disasters%20%26%20LGBTQIA%2B%20people_upload.pdf
31. Abad, M. (2024, April 6). Refusing to be invisible: Intersex Filipinos struggle to be seen, understood. RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/intersex-filipinos-struggle-seen-understood/
32. OHCHR. (2020, May 14). COVID-19: The suffering and resilience of LGBT persons must be visible and inform the actions of States. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2020/05/covid-19-suffering-and-resilience-lgbt-persons-must-be-visible-and-inform
33. Ritholtz, S. (2020, June 24). How COVID-19 aid is leaving LGBTQ+ people out. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2020/06/24/LGBTQ-gender-coronavirus-discrimination-aid
34. Su, Y. (2023). No One Wants to Hire Us: The intersectional precarity experienced by Venezuelan LGBTQ+ asylum seekers in Brazil during COVID-19. Anti-Trafficking Review, 21, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.14197/atr.201223214
35. Michelis, I. (2023). Later Is a Cis-Hetero Patriarchal Time Zone: Narratives of Resistance to LGBTQI+ Inclusion amongst Humanitarian Practitioners. Journal of Refugee Studies, fead072. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fead072
36. Macaraan, W. E. R. (2022). The State and the LGBTQI+ People: Toward an Inclusive COVID-19 Humanitarian Response. American Journal of Men’s Health, 16(6), 15579883221144376. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883221144376
37. Blanchard, K. (2024). Policy briefing: Considering mortality and medical decision-making for gender and sexual minorities in times of disaster. DRR Dynamics. https://irp.cdn-website.com/cde3424c/files/uploaded/GSM_-_disaster_mortality.pdf
38. Seglah, H., & Blanchard, K. (2021). LGBTQIA+ people and disasters. DRR Dynamics. https://irp.cdn-website.com/cde3424c/files/uploaded/LGBTQIA%2B%20report-3.pdf
39. Bariani, P. (2023). Engagement between diverse SOGIESC and humanitarian actors for inclusive protection: The case of Lebanon [Upsalla University]. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-506471
40. Reid, G., & Ritholtz, S. (2020). A Queer Approach to Understanding LGBT Vulnerability during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Politics & Gender, 16(4), 1101–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X20000707
41. Seglah, H. A., & Blanchard, K. (2022). Invisible again: Hyper-marginalised groups and disaster data. DRR Dynamics. https://irp.cdn-website.com/cde3424c/files/uploaded/Invisible%20again%20report%20upload.pdf
42. Kiss, L., Quinlan-Davidson, M., Pasquero, L., Tejero, P. O., Hogg, C., Theis, J., Park, A., Zimmerman, C., & Hossain, M. (2020). Male and LGBT survivors of sexual violence in conflict situations: A realist review of health interventions in low-and middle-income countries. Conflict and Health, 14(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-020-0254-5
43. Daigle, M., Spencer, A., Diab, J. L., Samneh, B., & Afandi, A. (2023). Sex, health and rights in   displacement and  humanitarian response: Crisis upon crisis in Lebanon and beyond. Humanitarian Policy Group and ODI.
44. Blyth, J., Alexander, K., Woolf, L., Devine, A., & Bush, A. (2020). Out of the Margins: An intersectional analysis of disability and diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, expression & sex characteristics in humanitarian and development contexts.
45. Shiu, C., Muraco, A., & Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. (2016). Invisible Care: Friend and Partner Care Among Older Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Adults. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(3), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1086/687325
46. Savage, B., & Barringer, M. N. (2024). It matters who does the (unpaid) work: Gender and the provision of informal caregiving by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) aging adults. Sexual and Gender Diversity in Social Services, 36(1), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2023.2241029

Authors: This brief was written by Luis Emmanuel A. Abesamis (UP Center for Women’s and Gender Studies; Ateneo de Manila University; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4512-3779) and Tabitha Hrynick (Institute of Development Studies; University of Amsterdam; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9571-5874).

Acknowledgements: This brief was reviewed by Bryon Neil Senga (Babaylanes, Inc.), Pamela Gloria Cajilig, PhD (University of the Philippines); Ene Abba Ijato (IFRC) and Kevin Blanchard (DRR Dynamics). Other individuals who contributed expertise to this brief include Cephas Mandirahwe (Midlands State University), Jap Ignacio (Babaylanes, Inc.) and Josephine Kusain (CARE Philippines). Editorial support was provided by Georgina Roche. This brief is the responsibility of SSHAP.

Suggested citation: Abesamis, L.E.A. and Hrynick, T. (2024). LGBTQIA+-inclusive humanitarian action in the Philippines. Social Science in Humanitarian Action (SSHAP). www.doi.org/10.19088/SSHAP.2024.041

Published by the Institute of Development Studies: September 2024.

Copyright: © Institute of Development Studies 2024. This is an Open Access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0). Except where otherwise stated, this permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited and any modifications or adaptations are indicated.

Contact: If you have a direct request concerning the brief, tools, additional technical expertise or remote analysis, or should you like to be considered for the network of advisers, please contact the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform by emailing Annie Lowden ([email protected]) or Juliet Bedford ([email protected]).

About SSHAP: The Social Science in Humanitarian Action (SSHAP) is a partnership between the Institute of Development Studies, Anthrologica , CRCF Senegal, Gulu University, Le Groupe d’Etudes sur les Conflits et la Sécurité Humaine (GEC-SH), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre, University of Ibadan, and the University of Juba. This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome 225449/Z/22/Z. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders, or the views or policies of the project partners.

Keep in touch

X: @SSHAP_Action

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.socialscienceinaction.org

Newsletter: SSHAP newsletter