Julius Chua 1

Engaging with this week’s materials on LGBTQ+ transnational solidarities and

Since the 1990s, queer activists and scholars have challenged the heteronormative values that un-
derlie development narratives, policies, and institutions (e.g. Razali and Miller, 1995; Gibson-Gra-
ham, 1996). The term ‘queer’, which encompasses non-normative sexualities and genders (Warner,
1998), rejects the binary distinction between homosexual and heterosexual (Jolly, 2000). Queer the-
ory thus calls for the end of marginalisation of queer people and communities, and encourages us to
think from marginalised sexual and gender identities in order to challenge various forms of norma-
tivity (Bhaskaran, 2004; Arrizón, 2006). Although LGBTQ+ interests have since featured in gender
and development policy, many global north states have utilised gender and sexual rights discourses
to construct themselves as superior to global South states (Kouri-Towe, 2012). Integrating same-sex
sexualities with development practices has, in many cases, become an imperial tool to maintain
Western hegemony over the global South- ironically, this has resulted in violent backlash against
queer people in the global South. Despite this, I argue that it is possible for same-sex sexualities to
be a focus for gender and development policy and practice, without reaffirming longstanding North-
South power dynamics. However, this necessitates a long-term transformative process contingent
on the following focus areas. Firstly, local grassroots movements and development agencies must
spearhead the centring of queer interests in development thought and practice. Simultaneously, de-
velopment practitioners- NGOs, policymakers, governmental institutions- in the global north must
stop perpetuating harmful discourses. They might instead focus on supporting grassroots organisa-
tions and exploring knowledge production as potential avenues for change. Lastly, gender and de-
velopment practice must focus on reducing violence against queer people, and create safe environ-
ments where queer identities can be safely recognised and expressed.

Local grassroots movements should be empowered to lead the centring of same-sex sexualities in
gender and development policy and practice instead of being overshadowed by global north devel-
opment institutions. Many LGBTQ+-focused practices implemented by global North development
agencies in the global South fail due to a lack of understanding and engagement with local popula-
tions (Jolly, 2000). In contrast, local grassroots movements often have a more nuanced understand-
ing of the heterogeneity of local voices, and better understand the community’s “structure, diverse
Julius Chua 2
histories, fractures, fluidity, and nodes of action” (Bergenfield and Miller, 2014: 12). This knowl-
edge of specific cultural norms and contexts allows them to make long-lasting and transformative
changes. The Tongzhi movement in Hong Kong and China in the early 2000s exemplifies this. The
movement strove towards queer justice, but negotiated its strategies based on the cultural context of
China (Brighton, 1999). It forwent confrontational politics in the form of mass protests and parades,
instead crafting its strategies based on the family-centred, community-oriented nature of Chinese
societies. The cultural sensitivity of this movement allowed it to achieve more success than one that
might have been imposed by a Western institution focusing on individualism and rights (Altman,
2000). The deep understanding that local grassroots movements have of their communities also al-
low them to better represent the interests of local communities. The first Black LGBTQ+ pride pa-
rade took place in Soweto in 2005, taking the form of a somber, political demonstration where
marchers sang songs of freedom (Malimabe, 2005). Organised by local grassroots movements, the
parade took place in a township away from Johannesburg’s commercial district and served as a “re-
jection of a white, apolitical Gay Pride” (Currier, 2010:162). The organisers sought to draw atten-
tion to issues faced by the Black LGBTQ+ community in South Africa such as violence, rape, and
homelessness (Muholi, 2004) which, up till then, had been overshadowed by the campaign for
same-sex marriage (Oswin, 2007b). Malimabe (2005) argues that this movement portrayed a more
authentic image of queer South Africans, and shed light on pressing issues important to them.
Clearly, progressive groups at local levels can better represent their communities and create more
effective and longer-lasting change- they should thus be empowered to take a lead role in centring
same-sex sexualities in development practice.

On the other hand, global north states and development practitioners need to change their current
approach to integrating same-sex sexualities into gender and development policy and practice. A
key area for change is the production of harmful Eurocentric discourse under which development
practices are legitimated and carried out. Some leaders in global north states have called for devel-
opment aid to global South countries to be made conditional on anti-LGBTQ+ laws being repealed.
The US, in particular, has put forward LGBTQ+ friendly laws and attempted to represent itself as a
leader in LGBTQ+ advocacy despite its long and ongoing history of violence against queer individ-
uals (HRC, 2011; King, 2014). This can be described as homonationalism (Puar, 2007), which out-
lines how Western states employ sexual rights discourses to construct themselves as superior and
more advanced in relation to states with more discriminatory laws targeting their queer citizens.
This discourse is harmful for a multitude of reasons- firstly, narratives of homonationalism “nor-
malises the homosexual as a white, cisgendered subject” (Puar. 2007: 48) and excludes queer, non-
white individuals and the violence they face. This also produces the non-European queer person as
Julius Chua 3
someone who needs to be saved from their own culture, which in turn constructs non-European cul-
tures as backward and in need of correction through neoliberal adjustment policies. Lastly, these
discourses often result in violent backlash against queer people in the global South (Bergenfield and
Miller, 2014).

Instead, global north states and development practitioners could focus on effecting positive change-
for instance, by supporting local grassroots activists in their efforts, or through producing feminist
and queer knowledges. Western development practitioners might negotiate partnerships between
foreign donors and local LGBTQ+ organisations in the global South- for example, Lamda Istanbul
in Türkiye is financially supported by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Organiza-
tion (Doan, 2010). Development practitioners are also well-placed to facilitate communication be-
tween affected communities and western development agencies- for instance, Washington-head-
quartered development NGO IREX recently held an event that featured activists from some aid re-
cipient countries advising attendees from Western development agencies on how to improve
(Bergenfield and Miller, 2014). Alvarez (2016) argues that the production of feminist and queer
knowledges is another important role of development NGOs. This might include position papers fo-
cusing on the everyday discrimination faced by women and non-heteronormative people, which can
provide vital foundations for more effective advocacy. The mobilisation of ideas, not just people, is
thus an important role of development NGOs. These knowledges should be co-produced with local
communities- Driskill et al. (2011) point out that such intellectual alliances constitute a form of ac-
tivism as well. They recognise that indigenous activist scholarship can remain rooted in grassroots
political movements, and the integration of activism and academia can lead to better scholarship.
Focusing on supporting local grassroots organisations and knowledge production might thus be al-
ternative focus areas for global North development practitioners.

Lastly, we must not allow the everyday violence faced by queer people in many global south com-
munities to continue. This violence is compounded by the intersectional identities of people in the
global south- for instance, queer indigenous people and trans people face disproportionately high
rates of violence (Driskill et al., 2011; Doan, 2010). Therefore, as opposed to targeting specific
identities of queer people, which blurs the intersectional nature of oppression, we should instead fo-
cus on creating safe spaces where queer people can express non-normative sexualities and genders
without fear of violence. By establishing safe spaces for queer sexualities, we can also amplify the
public visibility of queer people- this visibility constitutes a strategy employed by queer politics
(Butler, 1990; Richardson, 1996). For example, Swarr (2003) points out that the visibility of queer
people in South Africa demonstrates that divergent genders and sexualities are African, and chal-
Julius Chua 4
lenges longstanding assumptions about queer people. In this sense, queer visibility that arises from
the creation of safe spaces is in of itself a positive avenue for change. We might also see visibility
as a way of upending “heteronormative social institutions” (Hennessy, 2000: 37) used to regulate
gender-based inequality. For instance, Doan (2010) traces how gender transgressors and openly
trans people in the Middle East undermine social control mechanisms by disrupting gender norma-
tivity, and exposing, subverting and dismantling heteronormative discourses and practices with
fluid gender categories. Focusing on reducing violence and creating safe environments for the ex-
pression of queer identities is thus beneficial.

Evidently, many existing efforts to integrate same-sex sexualities with gender and development per-
petuate harm on the very communities these efforts claim to serve, and continue to reaffirm imperial
power relations. I argue that it is possible to change this, and allow same-sex sexualities to be a fo-
cus for gender and development policy and practice, without reaffirming existing North-South
power dynamics. However, local grassroots movements must take the lead, whereas global North
development practitioners should focus on harm reduction and explore other ways of effecting
change. Creating safe spaces for queer people to express their identities is also important. It is only
through a transformative project addressing the underlying factors that generate oppression that we
can hope to achieve justice for queer people.

1495 words
Julius Chua 5

References
Alvarez, Sonia E. (2016) “Beyond NGOization? Reflections from Latin America” in Theorizing
NGOs: States, Feminisms, and Neoliberalism, Bernal, Victoria and Inderpal Grewal (eds.). Duke
University Press.
Cornwall, A. and Rivas, A. (2015) From ‘gender and equality’ and ‘women’s empowerment’ to
global justice: Reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development. Third World Quar-
terly 36(2), 396-415.
Currier, Ashley (2010) “Behind the Mask: Developing LGBTI Visibility in Africa” in Develop-
ment, Sexual Rights and Global Governance. Routledge, pp. 155-168.
Doan, Petra (2010) “Disrupting Gender Normativity in the Middle East: Supporting Gender Trans-
gression as a Development Strategy” in Development, Sexual Rights and Global Governance. Rout-
ledge, pp. 145-154.
Driskill, Qwo-Li, Chris Finley, Brian Joseph Giley, and Scott Lauria Morgensen (2011) “The Revo-
lution is for Everyone: Imagining an Emancipatory Future through Queer Indigenous Critial Theo-
ries” in Queer Indigenous Studies: Critical Interventions in Theory, Politics, Driskill, Qwo-Li (ed.),
pp. 211-222.
King, Hilary. (2014) Queers of War: Normalizing Gays and Lesbians in the US War Machine, in
Good Intentions: Norms and Practices of Imperial Humanitarianism. Forte, Maximilian (ed.).
Lind, Amy (2010) “Introduction: Development, Global Governance, and Sexual Subjectivities” in
Development, Sexual Rights and Global Governance. Routledge, pp. 1-20.
Rachel Bergenfield and Alice M. Miller. Queering International Development?: An Examination of
New “LGBT Rights” Rhetoric, Policy, and Programming among International Development Agen-
cies.
Jolly, S. (2000) 'Queering' Development: Exploring the Links between Same-Sex Sexualities, Gen-
der, and Development. Gender and Development Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 78-88.