Albanese Government Must Do Better, and Do More, on LGBTIQ Rights in Second Year

Posted on May 21, 2023 by Alastair Lawrie

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the election of the federal Albanese Labor Government. Looking back on those first 12 months, there have been some small but important wins, and some disappointing losses. But above all, there has been plenty of unfinished – and in many cases, un-started – business.

First, to the wins. In November last year, as part of the Fair Work Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 reforms, the Government added gender identity and intersex status as protected attributes in relation to the Fair Work Act’s adverse action and unlawful termination provisions. These amendments ensured trans, gender diverse and intersex workers were explicitly included in this law for the first time (although the Government still needs to update the out-dated terminology of intersex status, replacing it with sex characteristics, something Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke has thankfully committed to do).

The second set of wins were the announcements from the Government which coincided with Sydney World Pride earlier this year, including:

Development of a 10 Year National Action Plan for the Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ Australians,
$26 million in grants for research projects seeking to improve the treatment and care of LGBTIQA+ people, through the Medical Research Future Fund, and
A new inclusion and equality fund to support LGBTIQ human rights in the Asia-Pacific region, with initial funding of $3.5 million.

On the other hand, the second half of 2022 saw some disappointing losses. This includes the decision by the Government to reject Greens amendments, supported by the cross-bench, to create an LGBTIQA+ Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission. Even if the Government believed the Bill being amended at the time (which related to the method of appointment for Commissioners) was the wrong vehicle for these amendments (which is the excuse they used), they have still not committed to introducing their own legislation to establish this stand-alone independent national voice on LGBTIQA+ rights which, based on recent events, is more needed than ever.

Another disappointing loss was the complete exclusion of LGBTIQ groups, and issues, from one of the major set-pieces of the first year of the Albanese Government: the Jobs and Skills Summit. Not only were LGBTIQ organisations not invited to attend the Summit itself, the Government also did not hold any specific consultations with LGBTIQ groups in the lead-up to it (out of more than 100 it conducted). It is therefore no surprise that the outcomes document from the Summit did not address any specific LGBTIQ issues – at a time when many cohorts within the LGBTIQ community experience significant workplace discrimination and exclusion (especially trans and gender diverse workers).

The above wins and losses could, in some respects, be seen as a decidedly mixed scorecard. Instead, I see it as a fundamentally incomplete one – after all, the issues identified are a long way from a comprehensive LGBTIQ agenda. There are many, many more priorities that the Government has not reached an outcome on – including plenty that haven’t even commenced.

Take, for example, one of the few explicit LGBTIQ commitments the Albanese Government took to the May 2022 election: to protect LGBTQ students and teachers in religious schools against discrimination.

In November 2022, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to undertake an inquiry on this topic, with a deadline of 21 April 2023. Except, the day before the final report of that review was due to be handed to the Government, the ALRC was given an 8-month extension to 31 December. There is really no need for such an extension – especially when this law reform itself is actually quite straight-forward (after all, Tasmania, the ACT, Victoria and NT all already protect both LGBTQ students and teachers).

The outcome of this process is that it is highly unlikely LGBTQ students and teachers will be protected this year, with any amendments not taking effect until well into 2024. As I wrote at the time of this delay in The Canberra Times, it is example of the ways in which the LGBTQ class of 2023 has been comprehensively failed, by Governments of both persuasions.

On a related note, the Government has not made any commitments to remove broader religious exceptions, found in both the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and Fair Work Act, which allow religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTQ workers, and people accessing services, across health, housing, disability, aged care and other welfare and community services. The majority of these services are funded by us, the taxpayer, including in aged care – meaning the large increases in aged care funding in the recent federal Budget are going to organisations that can use that money to discriminate against LGBTQ workers.

There are a range of other important LGBTIQ policy areas where the Government has not yet taken concrete action, including:

Inclusion in the 2026 Census. While the Australian Bureau of Statistics has started consultation on the questions which should be included in the next Census, the Government has not given an unequivocal promise that questions on sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics will be included. Such questions are necessary to help deliver essential services to our communities – after all, if we are not counted, we do not count.
Medicare funding for gender-affirming health care. Far too many trans and gender diverse Australians still cannot afford what are vital, and in many cases life-saving, health services. Gender-affirming health services should be publicly-funded via Medicare, removing out-of-pocket costs for this community.
Ending non-consenting surgeries on intersex kids. With the ACT Government soon to pass historic legislation banning many non-consenting surgeries and other medical interventions on children born with variations of sex characteristics (the first jurisdiction in Australia to do so), I am unaware of any Commonwealth Government actions to help ensure intersex kids are protected around the country.
Re-introduction of Safe Schools. The Albanese Government continues to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program to the tune of more than $60 million per year (and even though they have formally removed the requirement that these office-holders must be appointed on the basis of religion, the vast majority still are). In contrast, the Government has had two Budgets to date but is yet to find any money to re-introduce what was an effective, and necessary, program against anti-LGBTIQ bullying in schools.
LGBTIQ policy infrastructure. In addition to an LGBTIQA+ Human Rights Commissioner at the AHRC, there is a clear need for a Minister for LGBTIQ Communities, as well as formal consultative bodies in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, as well as portfolios like Health, Education and Attorney-General’s. Currently, none of these exist.

[For a more comprehensive LGBTIQ Report Card on the Albanese Government’s First Year in Office, check out this helpful graphic from Just.Equal Australia.]

Even on more symbolic matters, the Government’s record is mixed. While in late February Anthony Albanese became the first Prime Minister to march in the Mardi Gras Parade, and also participated in the World Pride March over Sydney Harbour Bridge in early March, these efforts at visible (some might say performative) inclusivity are undone by his apparent aversion to even saying the word transgender, let alone doing the bare minimum to publicly combat the growing culture war against trans and gender diverse Australians.

Speaking of which, it certainly feels like the Government is missing in action as the LGBTIQ community comes under increasing attacks, and even threats of violence, including the TERF and neo-Nazi rally on the steps of Victorian Parliament, the Christian Lives Matter riot in Belfield in Sydney, and the wave of intimidation against Drag Story Time events in Victoria and now elsewhere around Australia.

Local Councils have been left on their own to deal with what is a growing national crisis of far-right extremism, in a way that may not have happened if the targets had been from other communities. This is perhaps illustrated by the Attorney-General’s ill-timed announcement this week of $40 million in ‘Securing Faith-Based Places’ grants, to protect religious schools and places of worship against violence and discrimination.

Without debating the merits of this scheme – and I obviously agree people should be free to worship in safety – it was a mistake to announce this on IDAHOBIT, certainly without providing equivalent funding for LGBTIQ community security against similar (and in some cases, probably the same) extremists. Nor has the Government made any promises to introduce Commonwealth anti-vilification protections for LGBTIQ Australians, despite committing to prohibit religious vilification.

The Albanese Government still enjoys a large amount of public goodwill, including from many LGBTIQ people – at least partly due to the fact it is not the Morrison Liberal/National Government, a dreadful period during which our community came under relentless and sustained attack.

However, simply not being Scott Morrison is not enough as the Albanese Government enters its second year in office. From an LGBTIQ community perspective, they clearly need to do better, and do more, on the issues which affect us.

Oh, and one final thing. I raise the spectre of Scott Morrison here quite deliberately (despite the risk of PTSD, including my own). Because the coming 12 months is also likely to see the Albanese Government introduce its own Religious Discrimination Bill.

As a community we will need to be on high-alert to ensure this legislation protects people of faith against discrimination on the same basis as existing anti-discrimination laws, without permitting lawful discrimination against others, including LGBTIQ Australians. If it does include anti-LGBTIQ provisions, the Government should be in no doubt we will fight against its law just as hard as we fought against Morrison’s Bill.

Anthony Albanese on election night, 21 May 2022.

If you have enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to receive future posts, via the right-hand scroll bar on the desktop version of this blog or near the bottom of the page on mobile. You can also follow me on twitter @alawriedejesus

The Jobs and Skills Summit and LGBTIQ Australians Part 2

Posted on August 28, 2022 by Alastair Lawrie

Last Sunday, I posted about the upcoming Jobs and Skills Summit, and the inclusion (or, at that stage, exclusion) of issues affecting LGBTIQ workers.

This included a letter to Prime Minister Albanese, Treasurer Chalmers, and seven of their ministerial colleagues, calling on them to include consideration of two matters in particular that affect LGBTIQ people in the workplace:

The absence of explicit protections for trans, gender diverse and intersex employees in the Fair Work Act 2009(Cth), and
The breadth of exceptions, in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and elsewhere, allowing religious organisations to discriminate against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, including in the delivery of public services using taxpayers’ money.

Since then, the issue of potential LGBTIQ exclusion from the Jobs and Skills Summit has been picked up by my friends at Just.Equal Australia, as well as being reported on by:

Out in Perth – ‘Concern over LGBTIQA+ omission from employment summit’, and
QNews – ‘Albanese government must not snub LGBTIQA+ issues at Jobs Summit’ https://www.outinperth.com/concern-over-lgbtiqa-omission-for-employment-summit/

I also received the below, generic response from the Treasurer’s office, which, to be honest, did not inspire much confidence that my concerns, and the concerns of my community, were being taken seriously:

Dear Alastair,

Thank you for your email and attached correspondence about the Albanese Government’s Jobs and Skills Summit, which is scheduled to held over the 1^st and 2^nd of September.

The Jobs and Skills Summit will bring together around 100 representatives including from unions, employers, civil society and governments, to address our shared economic challenges.

The outcomes of the Summit will inform the Employment White Paper, which will be a shared vision and comprehensive blueprint for the future of Australia’s labour market.

Although Summit attendance will be limited and invite only, Treasury will be opening a submission process to collect insights and perspectives from the wider community later in 2022.

You can find out more information about the Summit and the White Paper, including up to date advice on when public submissions will be opened, by visitinghttps://treasury.gov.au/employment-whitepaper/jobs-summit.

Again, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and views on the above which will be brought to the attention of the Treasurer’s ministerial team.

Best wishes

[Name withheld], on behalf of the Hon. Jim Chalmers MP

Office of the Hon. Jim Chalmers MP | Treasurer of Australia and Federal Member for Rankin

Which made it a pleasant surprise to read, via Out in Perth, the Treasurer Jim Chalmers confirm that LGBTIQA+ issues would indeed be on the agenda at the conference:

‘We recognise that many LGBTIQA+ Australians often face a range of unique challenges when it comes to secure employment.

‘These are exactly the issues that we hope to address through our Jobs and Skills Summit.

‘That’s why removing barriers to employment and workforce participation are central themes of our Jobs and Skills Summit. Our aim is to bring people together around our big economic challenges to ensure more Australians can get a secure, well-paid job.’

Of course, just because LGBTIQ issues might actually be discussed, does not mean the Summit itself, or the Government afterwards, will recommend or commit to taking action to fix the problems which lead to workplace discrimination against, and exclusion of, LGBTIQ people.

I should also note I have not had a response from Albanese, Chalmers or any of the other seven Ministers addressing the substantive concerns raised by my letter.

In which case, the push continues to ensure the Fair Work Act, Sex Discrimination Act and other relevant laws are amended so that LGBTIQ workers are judged on the basis of their ability, not their sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics.

In that context, today I have sent the below emails to two of the primary non-Government voices that will be represented at the Jobs and Skills Summit: ACTU Secretary Sally McManus and Business Council of Australia CEO Jennifer Westacott.

Hopefully their assistance will help give voice to the need to legislate better protections for LGBTIQ workers in Australia.

*****

Sunday 28 August 2022

Sally McManus

Secretary

Australian Council of Trade Unions

Dear Ms McManus

Please support reforms to protect LGBTIQ workers at the Jobs and Skills Summit

I am writing to you about the upcoming Jobs and Skills Summit, at which you will be a key voice advocating for the interests of Australian workers.

In particular, I am writing, both as a union member for two decades, and as a leading advocate for my community, to ask you to support important reforms to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) workers.

These include:

Reforms to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to explicitly protect trans, gender diverse and intersex workers against adverse action and unlawful termination. This could be achieved, easily, by adding gender identity and sex characteristics as protected attributes in relevant sections where categories such as race, sex, disability, age and even sexual orientation are already covered.
Reforms to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and other Commonwealth and State and Territory anti-discrimination laws to remove the special privileges granted to religious organisations allowing them to discriminate against workers on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, including in the delivery of public services using taxpayers’ money. This problem is especially acute in what is described in the Issues Paper as the ‘care economy’ and their removal would, I believe, lead to more LGBTQ people entering professions like education, disability services and aged care.

I attach with this correspondence a letter which was sent to Prime Minister Albanese, Treasurer Chalmers and seven of their ministerial colleagues, that provides more detail about these issues, and the compelling reasons why changes must be made to both.

I note both your own strong personal support, and the strong support of many unions and members of the ACTU, to LGBTIQ rights over the past decade, including through the campaign for marriage equality.

I look forward to your support once again, on Thursday and Friday of this week, and over the following months, for the interests of LGBTIQ workers.

Because I am confident that you agree trans, gender diverse and intersex workers should have the same Fair Work Act protections as any employee. And that LGBTQ workers should be judged on their ability, rather than their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

*****

Sunday 28 August 2022

Jennifer Westacott

Chief Executive Officer

Business Council of Australia

Dear Ms Westacott

Please support reforms to protect LGBTIQ workers at the Jobs and Skills Summit

I am writing to you about the upcoming Jobs and Skills Summit, at which you will be a key voice in central debates around economic and industrial relations reforms.

In particular, I am writing as a leading advocate for my community to ask you to support important reforms to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) workers.

These include:

Reforms to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to explicitly protect trans, gender diverse and intersex workers against adverse action and unlawful termination. This could be achieved, easily, by adding gender identity and sex characteristics as protected attributes in relevant sections where categories such as race, sex, disability, age and even sexual orientation are already covered.
Reforms to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and other Commonwealth and State and Territory anti-discrimination laws to remove the special privileges granted to religious organisations allowing them to discriminate against workers on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, including in the delivery of public services using taxpayers’ money. This problem is especially acute in what is described in the Issues Paper as the ‘care economy’ and their removal would, I believe, lead to more LGBTQ people entering professions like education, disability services and aged care.

I attach with this correspondence a letter which was sent to Prime Minister Albanese, Treasurer Chalmers and seven of their ministerial colleagues, that provides more details about these issues, and the compelling reasons why changes must be made to both.

Indeed, I note that you made some of the same arguments for better workplace inclusion in your speech on 27 May this year at the 2022 Australian LGBTIQ Inclusion Awards:

‘[T]oday we are here to celebrate and applaud the excellence of employers and their teams for their commitment to advancing inclusion and diversity.

It’s the right thing to do.

And not just that – it’s also smart business.

When every person can be their best selves at work:

They’re happier
They’re more productive
They’re more creative
They’re more loyal, and
They’re more likely to stay with their current employer.

Doing the right thing is a win-win…

I do not believe that any person should be made to feel excluded.

I do not believe that any person should be made to feel less than they are.

I do not believe that anyone’s personal struggle should be used as a political football.

So today I want to spend the bulk of my time apologising.

I want to apologise to our transgender colleagues.

I want to apologise:

For the hurt you have endured
For the cruelty you have been subjected to, and
For the fundamental misinformation and unfairness that has shrouded the discussion over the last year, but particularly during the election.’

You went on to acknowledge:

‘I understand the fear and worry when you turn up to work and every single new encounter is potentially:

A rejection
The loss of your employment status, or
The loss of your job.

I understand that there is only one choice you have to make.

It is not a flippant or superficial lifestyle choice.

Instead, it’s a difficult and often agonising acceptance to either be yourself or to pretend to be someone else.’

The upcoming Jobs and Skills Summit is another opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to improving the lives of trans and gender diverse Australians, who are affected by both the lack of explicit protections under the Fair Work Act, and the broad special privileges granted to religious organisations under the Sex Discrimination Act.

I look forward to you building on your public apology in May by supporting essential reforms to both these laws later this week.

Because I am confident, based on your speech, that you agree trans, gender diverse and intersex workers should have the same Fair Work Act protections as any employee. And that LGBTQ workers should be judged on their ability, rather than their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

*****

ACTU Secretary Sally McManus and Business Council of Australia CEO Jennifer Westacott will play a key role in whether the upcoming Jobs and Skills Summit supports much-needed law reform to protect the rights of LGBTIQ workers.

NB This post is written in a personal capacity, and does not reflect the views of employers past or present.

The Jobs and Skills Summit and LGBTIQ Australians

Posted on August 21, 2022 by Alastair Lawrie

The Albanese Labor Government’s Jobs and Skills Summit will be held on September 1 and 2, 2022, now just eleven days away.

While there has been significant coverage of a wide range of issues relevant to this conference, there has been little to no reporting of how it will affect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) workers.

The letter below, to Prime Minister Albanese, Treasurer Chalmers and a number of other Ministers, seeks to place at least two important and urgent LGBTIQ policy matters onto the Jobs and Skills Summit agenda.

As always, I will publish any responses received.

*****

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Treasurer Jim Chalmers

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus

Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Tony Burke

Minister for Health and Aged Care Mark Butler

Minister for Aged Care Anika Wells

Minister for Education Jason Clare

Minister for Social Services Amanda Rishworth

Minister for the NDIS Bill Shorten

Sunday 21 August 2022

Dear Prime Minister Albanese and other Ministers

Please include LGBTIQ workers in the Jobs and Skills Summit

I am writing to you about the upcoming Jobs and Skills Summit, and the need to include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) workers and the issues which affect them.

I was initially encouraged to observe the Summit would include a focus on ‘expanding employment opportunities for all Australians including the most disadvantaged.’^[i]

However, I am both concerned and deeply disappointed by the Jobs and Skills Summit Issues Paper, released on 17 August,^[ii] which completely omits LGBTIQ Australians as one of the groups which should be considered as part of this focus.

Specifically, page 2 of that document states:

‘While the participation rate is around historically high levels, many Australians still face barriers to secure and well-paid employment. In particular, women, First Nations people, people with disability, older Australians, migrants and refugees, and those living in certain regional and remote areas face specific barriers to entering the workforce. This means there are further opportunities and obligations to ensure the benefits of strong labour market conditions are accessible to all people in Australia.’

There is no mention of LGBTIQ workers here, nor on any other of the Issues Paper’s 14 pages.

This is despite the fact employment-related discrimination against LGBTIQ workers, including and perhaps especially transgender and gender diverse workers, is well-documented.

For example, a 2021 paper^[iii] found that for transgender, including gender diverse and nonbinary (trans), people:

‘The unemployment rate of 19% was three times that of the Australian general population rate of 5.5% in May 2018 and well above the youth unemployment rate (12.2%). Notably, 33% of respondents perceived discrimination in employment. Unemployment may also occur due to difficulty with name and identity documents, discrimination in basic housing and health care, and the impact of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety on an individual’s ability to seek or maintain employment. Conversely, levels of depression and anxiety may be higher due to unemployment.’

The omission of LGBTIQ workers from the Jobs and Skills Summit Issues Paper also comes despite many LGBTIQ workers enjoying lesser workplace rights and protections than other employees, and a large number of employers being legally entitled to fire, to refuse to hire, or to otherwise discriminate against, LGBTQ workers simply because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This often includes the use of taxpayers’ money in said discrimination.

These issues must be addressed if the Jobs and Skills Summit is to indeed focus on ‘expanding employment opportunities for all Australians including the most disadvantaged.’

I include below two fundamental, urgent issues which therefore must be included in the Summit’s agenda.

Protect transgender, gender diverse and intersex workers under the Fair Work Act

Currently, transgender, gender diverse and intersex workers do not enjoy the same legal status under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) as other employees, including women, people with disability, and even lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

This is because the adverse action protections in section 351, and unlawful termination protections in section 772, contain a long list of protected attributes – such as ‘race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin’ – but omit the protected attributes of gender identity and sex characteristics (intersex status).

In practice, this means transgender, gender diverse and intersex workers may not have the same guaranteed access to the low-cost, low-barrier Fair Work Commission as other employees who are subjected to mistreatment or unfair dismissal simply because of who they are.

Despite raising the lack of explicit Fair Work Act protections for these workers with the previous Government for several years,^[iv] they refused to take any action to address this discrepancy, even voting against straight-forward Greens amendments to the 2021 Respect@Work Bill which would have remedied the situation, providing much-needed remedies to workers.^[v]

I note the then-Labor Opposition voted for some, although not all, of those Greens amendments.^[vi] I also note that, as a result of advocacy from myself and others, the 2021 ALP National Conference passed the following special resolution:^[vii]

‘Aligning the Fair Work Act and Sex Discrimination Act

Labor will amend the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act to align with the Sex Discrimination Act to cover workers who are currently not protected.’

Unfortunately, while implementing this commitment – which would involve adding gender identity and intersex status as protected attributes in the Fair Work Act – would achieve some improvement, it would not bring that legislation up to best practice.

This is because sex characteristics^[viii] is considered a more accurate, and more inclusive, protected attribute, and is the terminology preferred by intersex advocates, including Intersex Human Rights Australia.

Therefore, at least part of the response to this question on page 5 of the Jobs and Skills Summit Issues Paper:

‘How can we ensure workplaces are safe and fair, particularly for those people at higher risk of harassment, discrimination and other breaches of workplace minimum standards?’

is to add gender identity and sex characteristics as protected attributes in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), including in relation to adverse action (s351) and unlawful termination (s772), so that transgender, gender diverse and intersex workers have the same rights and protections as everyone else.

Recommendation 1: The Jobs and Skills Summit must ensure transgender, gender diverse and intersex workers have the same rights and protections under the Fair Work Act as other employees, including in relation to adverse action and unlawful termination.

2. Remove special exceptions allowing religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTQ workers

That same question – ‘How can we ensure workplaces are safe and fair, particularly for those people at higher risk of harassment, discrimination and other breaches of workplace minimum standards?’ – is also relevant to the second issue which I submit must be on the Jobs and Skills Summit agenda: removing special exceptions which allow religious bodies to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) workers.

In fact, this issue is pertinent to a range of discussion, and questions, covered in the Issues Paper, including this statement on pages 6 and 7:

‘Addressing the barriers to participation and promoting equality of opportunity will contribute to a stronger and more inclusive economy, enable more Australians to realise their full potential, and help address current labour market challenges. This, in turn, will help ensure that the benefits of full employment are shared fairly across our community.’

And the associated questions on page 7:

‘How can we reduce the barriers to employment for some Australians? How should governments, unions, business and the broader community best coordinate efforts to achieve this?’ and
‘What strategies can be used to reduce discrimination and increase awareness of the value that diversity can bring to business and the broader economy?’

And on page 11: ‘How do we navigate workforce shortages in the care economy while supporting our frontline workers?’

Many people are aware of this issue because of public debate over the past five years surrounding ‘religious freedom’, the previous Government’s proposed (but thankfully-defeated) Religious Discrimination Bill, and the discriminatory (mis)treatment of LGBTQ students, teachers and other staff under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

Many people may not be aware of how broad these exceptions are in practice, not just under the Sex Discrimination Act, but also under the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth), Fair Work Act itself (undermining both its adverse action and unlawful termination protections), and the majority of state and territory anti-discrimination laws (including in my home state of NSW where the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 has the broadest religious exceptions in the country).

The effects of these exceptions are all-too-real for LGBTQ workers.

Not only can LGBTQ teachers be denied, or fired from, jobs for which they are otherwise eminently qualified, simply because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

But so too can LGBTQ aged care workers, nurses, doctors, social workers, disability workers and other employees across what is described in the Issues Paper as the care economy.

There are a range of serious consequences which flow from this discrimination, including:

For LGBTQ workers, obviously this includes being denied employment, and losing significant financial benefits, or alternatively being forced to stay closeted while in the workplace, with associated mental health harms.
For the LGBTQ community more broadly, this discrimination reinforces poorer health and well-being outcomes, as well as entrenching economic disadvantage.
For the services themselves, they are rejecting the best person for the job on the basis of criteria which has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to do the job. Alternatively, they are forcing some employees to not bring their whole selves to work, thereby diminishing the quality of the work those employees do.
This also means that, for people accessing these services, they are effectively denied being served by the most qualified person for the role. A person in an aged care home deserves the best aged care worker possible, not the best cisgender-heterosexual worker. A student deserves to learn from the most qualified teacher, not the most qualified cisgender-heterosexual one. And so on. And so on. Across society.
It should be remembered that the vast majority of these roles are delivering what are basically public services, like education, health, aged care, or social and disability services, and in nearly all cases using public – or taxpayers’ – money to do so. That means every Australian is helping to fund this discrimination, and even more egregiously, that LGBTQ workers are being asked to subsidise their own oppression.
Finally, in an era of large and growing worker shortages across education, health, aged care, and social and disability services, permitting lawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity discourages at least some members of the LGBTQ community from considering careers in these areas – which is perhaps a rational response to the knowledge that large employers in your chosen profession may be lawfully able to refuse to hire you, or fire you, just because of who you are.

For all of these reasons, a Jobs and Skills Summit that is focused on ‘expanding employment opportunities for all Australians including the most disadvantaged’ must seriously consider the harmful impacts of special exceptions which allow religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTQ workers simply because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

And I submit it should recommend that such exceptions be abolished, not just for the benefit of those LGBTQ workers, but for the benefit of people accessing publicly-funded services in education, health, aged care, and social and disability services, and the benefit of the Australian community generally.

Recommendation 2: The Jobs and Skills Summit should call for the repeal of special exceptions allowing religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTQ workers simply because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Thank you in advance for considering the above issues ahead of the Jobs and Skills Summit. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided should you require additional information.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

Will Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ensure that significant issues affecting LGBTIQ workers are considered at the Jobs and Skills Summit?

NB This post is written in a personal capacity, and does not reflect the views of employers past or present.

Footnotes:

^[i] Prime Minister and Treasurer Joint Media Release, ‘Jobs and Skills Summit to be Held in September’, 11 July 2022, available at: https://www.pm.gov.au/media/jobs-and-skills-summit-be-held-september

^[ii] Department of the Treasury, ‘Jobs and Skills Summit Issues Paper’, 17 August 2022, available at: https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2022-302672

^[iii] Ingird Bretherton et al, ‘The Health and Well-Being of Transgender Australians: A National Community Survey’, LGBT Health Vol 8, No 1, 12 January 2021, available at: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/lgbt.2020.0178

^[iv] See for example: Unfairness in the Fair Work Act.

^[v] See: Pathetic and Antipathetic, in Equal Measure.

^[vi] The Labor Party supported the inclusion of gender identity and intersex status as protected attributes in the Fair Work Act – which are the same attributes already covered under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) – but did not support amendments which would have added gender identity and sex characteristics as protected attributes, with the latter terminology now considered best practice, and supported by intersex community organisations including Intersex Human Rights Australia.

^[vii] ALP 2021 National Platform, page 137, available at: https://alp.org.au/media/2594/2021-alp-national-platform-final-endorsed-platform.pdf

^[viii] This is defined in section 4(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) as:

‘sex characteristics means a person’s physical features relating to sex, including-

(a) genitalia and other sexual and reproductive parts of the person’s anatomy; and

(b) the person’s chromosomes, genes, hormones, and secondary physical features that emerge as a result of puberty.’

Not Going Backwards is Not the Same Thing as Going Forwards

Posted on March 17, 2022 by Alastair Lawrie

Almost two weeks after the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras, the NSW LGBTIQ community has been given a belated reason to celebrate.

Yesterday (Wednesday 16 March), the NSW Government finally released its response to Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill (formally called the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020), in which they categorically rejected his proposed legislation.

This was a law that, if passed, would have erased trans and gender diverse students from classrooms and schoolyards across the State.

It also would have introduced a Thatcher-esque section 28-style prohibition on positive references to LGBTQ people generally (modelled after a UK law from the 1980s and 90s which harmed a generation of queer kids there).

As well as enacting a new offensive and stigmatising definition of intersex people in NSW legislation.

Importantly, the Perrottet Liberal/National Government also rejected key recommendations of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Latham’s Bill (which, in a disturbing conflict of interest, featured Latham himself as Chair). This included ruling out:

Banning trans students from using the bathroom reflecting their gender identity
Outing trans students to non-supportive parents, even where this puts the student in danger
Stopping trans students from seeking confidential help from school counsellors, and
Outing trans students to all of the parents of other students in their year group.

The Government’s decision to reject Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill, and key recommendations of his biased inquiry, is obviously incredibly welcome.

Above all, it is a huge relief to LGBTIQ students, and especially trans and gender diverse kids and their families, who no longer need fear his legislative attack on their right to a safe and inclusive education.

However, this does not mean we should be overly-congratulatory towards the NSW Government either.

For example, in their response the Government notes, as one of their reasons for rejecting the Bill, that it ‘may lead to targeted discrimination against a marginalised community which already experiences poorer mental health and wellbeing outcomes’ (ie trans and nonbinary children and young people).

Which is true. But it was also true on the day Latham first introduced his legislation way back in August 2020.

There was no need for a drawn-out Parliamentary Inquiry to tell them that.

There was definitely no need to refer it to Latham’s Committee for that Inquiry.

There was no justification for all three Government members of that Inquiry to support the main elements of Latham’s Bill, including backing harmful recommendations about outing trans kids, and preventing them from accessing bathrooms, or seeking help from counsellors.

And there was clearly no justification for the Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Kevin Conolly, to express his personal support for the Bill (noting that he remains in that portfolio today).

The NSW Government could, and should, have spared the trans community from being forced to endure yet another debate about their very existence, by rejecting the Bill from the outset rather than taking 19 months and giving One Nation a platform to spread their transphobia in the meantime.

So, while the response yesterday was the right outcome, the tortuous route it took them to arrive there means they deserve, at best, a polite clap rather than a standing ovation.

The second reason why we should not be giving thunderous applause to the NSW Government is that all they have done is stop the situation in NSW from getting worse.

LGBTIQ people in NSW still woke up this morning in the worst jurisdiction for their legal rights in the country. Just as they did yesterday, and as they will tomorrow.

This includes having the worst anti-discrimination laws, which fail to protect bisexual people (the only place in Australia not to do so), nonbinary people, and intersex people. And which have extraordinary exceptions, allowing all private schools and colleges, religious and non-religious alike, to discriminate against LGBTQ students and teachers.

NSW will likely also soon be the only state or territory which requires trans and gender diverse people to have genital surgery in order to update their birth certificate (assuming Queensland follows through on its promises to reform their own laws this year).

NSW has made no progress on, or given any firm commitments to, prohibiting sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices (which have already been banned in Victoria and the ACT, partially banned in Queensland, with bans under active consideration elsewhere).

And NSW has also shown no signs it will end what I consider to be the worst human rights abuses against any part of the LGBTIQ community: coercive surgeries and other non-consensual medical interventions on children born with innate variations in sex characteristics (with the ACT and Victorian Governments already committed to reform in this area, and realistic hope for change in at least one other jurisdiction).

All the NSW Government did yesterday was rule out taking another step backwards.

But even standing still means that, with each and every passing year, NSW falls further and further behind on LGBTIQ law reform.

Next week (Friday 25 March) will mark exactly one year to go until the next State election.

That’s a full 12 months for the Perrottet Liberal/National Government to do more than just publicly reject a terrible law attacking some of the most vulnerable members of our community, and instead to make long-overdue progress on at least some, if not all, of the above-mentioned law reforms to make the lives of LGBTIQ people in NSW better.

If they do, they will have actually earned some real praise.

Finally, lest I be accused of being partisan, we cannot let the Minns Labor Opposition off the hook on this subject either.

Because they too have failed to publicly condemn Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill over the past 19 months.

They too voted for it to be referred to a Parliamentary Inquiry chaired by Latham himself.

And, disappointingly, they also had one of their two members on that Inquiry support the main elements of Latham’s Bill, including backing harmful recommendations about outing trans kids, and preventing them from accessing bathrooms, or seeking help from counsellors.

That’s simply not good enough. Nor is the fact that, one year out from what looks to be a highly competitive election, we currently know next-to-nothing about Labor’s plans on the issues described earlier.

It’s time for them to demonstrate to the LGBTIQ community exactly what they would do to end NSW’s reign as the jurisdiction with the worst laws in Australia.

In summary, then, while I am happy and relieved for LGBTIQ students, and trans and gender diverse kids in particular, that Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill has finally been rejected, I am far from satisfied with the current state of law reform in NSW. We can and must demand better, from both the Perrottet Liberal/National Government, and Minns Labor Opposition.

If you thought the Religious Discrimination Bill was bad, wait til you hear about Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill

Posted on February 14, 2022 by Alastair Lawrie

Last week, we had some rare good news: the Commonwealth Government’s Religious Discrimination Bill stalled in the Senate, and now seems unlikely to pass before the upcoming federal election.

That Bill would have legally protected religiously-motivated anti-LGBT speech in all areas of public life, and potentially overridden state and territory protections for LGBT teachers and other workers in religious schools in Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT (among many other problems – for more detail, see: Why the Religious Discrimination Bill must be rejected (In 1,000 words or less)).

The fact it has been stopped (at least for now), is obviously a welcome relief.

Unfortunately, that relief is short-lived, especially for LGBTIQ people in NSW, because the NSW Government’s response to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Mark Latham’s Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 – otherwise known as his anti-trans kids Bill – is expected at any point in the next three weeks, and must be delivered by March 7 (the Monday after Mardi Gras).

This legislation is actually worse than the Religious Discrimination Bill, in particular because it so specifically targets the most vulnerable members of our community. For those who aren’t familiar with it, allow me to explain its main features.

What’s in Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill?

The primary purpose of Latham’s legislation is to erase trans and gender diverse children from classrooms and schoolyards across NSW. It does this by inserting the following definition into the Education Act 1990 (NSW):

gender fluidity means a belief there is a difference between biological sex (including people who are, by their chromosomes, male or female but are born with disorders of sexual differentiation) and human gender and that human gender is socially constructed rather [than] being equivalent to a person’s biological sex.

It then prohibits not just ‘the teaching of gender fluidity’ (proposed section 17A), but also any ‘instruction, counselling and advice provided by’ teachers, support staff, counsellors, principals, contractors, consultants and even volunteers at any school in the state, public or private (proposed section 17C).

The punishment for teachers who breach this prohibition is immediate de-registration (ie being fired).

In effect, the Bill would impose an official silence on anything to do with transgender people – even the fact that they exist. This includes everything from exclusion from the health and physical education syllabus, through to banning school counsellors from discussing gender identity with struggling students who are at risk of self-harm or suicide.

Trans and gender diverse kids would be made to feel invisible, with nowhere to turn to for help.

The Bill then *also* includes provisions to harm LGBTQ kids more generally. It does this by inserting a definition of matters of parental primacy:

in relation to the education of children, moral and ethical standards, political and social values, and matters of personal wellbeing and identity including gender and sexuality.

Before introducing a range of provisions to limit the teaching of anything to do with these issues. Chief among them is proposed section 17B:

Teaching to be non-ideological

In government schools, the education is to consist of strictly non-ideological instructions in matters of parental primacy. The words non-ideological instruction are to be taken to include general teaching about matters of parental primacy as distinct from advocating or promoting dogmatic or polemical ideology.

The impact of this provision is incredibly far-reaching. After all, if some parents believe homosexuality is sinful, then presumably it would be ideological for a school to teach that simply being lesbian, gay or bisexual is okay. As with the ban on the teaching of gender fluidity, this ban also applies in relation to school counsellors (who could not reassure a child struggling with their sexual orientation that who they are is normal).

The use of the phrase ‘advocating or promoting’ reveals this is simply Margaret Thatcher’s infamous section 28 – which harmed a generation of LGBT kids in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s – recycled on the other side of the world for the 2020s.

The outcome would be the same here – teachers and other workers too afraid to mention anything to do with sexual orientation or gender identity at the risk of de-registration, inflicting silence on LGBTQ kids where there should be support.

Finally, Latham’s Bill attacks the ‘I’ part of the LGBTIQ community by including an offensive and stigmatising reference to intersex in NSW law (as part of the definition of gender fluidity – ‘people who are, by their chromosomes, male or female but are born with disorders of sexual differentiation). The use of disorders here is exactly the type of harmful language which encourages the imposition of coercive surgeries and other unnecessary medical treatments on children born with variations of sex characteristics.

For more detail on the Bill, see I Stand With Trans Kids, and Against Mark Latham.

But it’s from Mark Latham. Why can’t we just ignore it?

For those (blissfully) unaware of Mark Latham’s current political status, the failed former federal leader of the Australian Labor Party is now the NSW leader of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. In a normal political environment, fringe extremist legislation from a fringe extremist party could sometimes be ignored.

Sadly, the NSW Legislative Council removed this option when, in its infinite (lack of) wisdom, it decided to refer the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 to the Education Portfolio Committee for inquiry – the same Committee chaired by… Mark Latham.

Given this, the inquiry process into Latham’s unbalanced and transphobic Bill was, well, unbalanced and transphobic.

In the two days of hearings last April, 42 witnesses were invited to give evidence. Only one (Teddy Cook, from ACON) was trans or gender diverse. None were trans or gender diverse students, the people whose right to a safe learning environment would be stripped away by passage of this law.

There were multiple instances of disrespectful treatment towards submitters who opposed the Bill (from Latham himself), while he encouraged other witnesses to give evidence about subject matter which was not included in the legislation (such as witnesses who focused on the exclusion of trans girls from bathrooms, and sporting activities).

Unsurprisingly, the entire committee process became a platform for some of the worst examples of transphobia we have seen in any Australian parliament in recent history, perhaps best summed up by this statement from Mark Sneddon of the Institute of Civil Society:

‘What we are trying to do – or what I understand the bill is trying to do – is to reduce the social contagion influence putting more people onto the conveyor belt of gender transition.’

Which, at the very least, is being honest: through this Bill, Latham is attempting to stop trans and nonbinary kids from being trans and nonbinary. Presumably because he thinks being those things is a negative in and of itself.

While the rest of us understand that:

Trans and nonbinary people are part of the natural spectrum of human gender identity
Trans and nonbinary kids are awesome, and
There are really two conveyor belts – one which lets trans and nonbinary kids be themselves and delivers them to health and happiness, and one which tells trans and nonbinary kids that they are wrong and should not exist, and causes them serious harm.

For more on the Inquiry process, see: Surprise!* Mark Latham’s Inquiry is just as unbalanced and transphobic as his Bill.

What did the Inquiry recommend?

Completely unsurprisingly, given the Committee’s lack of impartiality, the Final Report released in September 2021 endorsed core parts of Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill.

This includes Recommendation 2, which supported the section 28-style approach to denying information to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans students:

That, in recognition of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the NSW Government supports all parental primacy provisions and protections in the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights Bill) 2020 including:

the statutory recognition of parental primacy in definition, object and principle within the Education Act 1990 and related statutes;
the requirement for teaching to be non-ideological;
the enhanced consultation requirements with parents; and
the right for parents to withdraw their children from teaching that is inconsistent with their core values and convictions.

And while there was a brief glimmer of hope when I first read Recommendation 7 (‘That the Legislative Council amend the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 to remove the proposed legislative provisions concerning gender fluidity’), this was immediately undone by Recommendation 8, which starts:

‘That the NSW Government update Bulletin 55: Transgender Students in Schools based on the following principles:

The Safe Schools program and Gayby Baby movie are prohibited in NSW Government schools. Gender fluidity is not part of the NSW school curriculum and therefore, should not be taught or promoted, either in classrooms, teacher professional development, by external consultants, special school activities or through the distribution of material to teachers or students. This prohibition also applies to the teaching of gender as a ‘social construct’.’

In practice, the Committee still endorsed the erasure of trans and gender diverse kids from classrooms and schoolyards, they simply thought it could best be achieved via Bulletin, not Bill.

But there are other parts of Recommendation 8 which are *far* worse, and would not be out of place in regressive and repressive, redneck Republican USA. This includes (but is definitely not limited to):

A ban on trans students using the bathroom that reflects their gender identity (Recommendation 8.9: ‘Other than in circumstances of a full medical gender transition,^[i] students born biologically male shall not be allowed in female toilets, change rooms, dormitories and excursion accommodation; and vice versa for students born biologically female. Third options shall be made available for these students, such as administrative block toilets and change rooms’)
Outing trans students to non-supportive parents, even where this puts the student in danger (Recommendation 8.4: ‘No school or school staff can withhold information from parents about the gender or gender transition of a student at the school, other than by court order or acting with the advice of a government child protection agency’ and Recommendation 8.5: ‘No student has the right or capacity to stop the school telling their parents information about their gender, where the school is obliged to do so’)
Stopping trans students from seeking confidential help from school counsellors (Recommendation 8.11: ‘For students aged under 18 years, school counsellors should not involve themselves in questions of gender fluidity and transition without prior reference to parents and any medical professionals advising the student and parents on this matter. Parents have the right to know if gender fluidity and transition are being discussed at a school. School counsellors must liaise with parents and relevant medical professionals as much as possible’), and
Outing trans students to all of the parents of students in their year group (Recommendation 8.12: ‘If a student has changed their gender, their parents shall be consulted about the best way of communicating this to the school community. Parents of other children in the same year group should be notified of the change, allowing them to talk to their children in advance’).

The full Committee report, and other harmful parts of Recommendation 8, can be read here.

In short, the adoption of Recommendation 8 in full would cause significant harm for thousands of trans and nonbinary children and young people in NSW.

Which makes it disturbing to realise that not only was this recommendation (and all of the others, including implementing section 28) made by Committee Chair Mark Latham, they were endorsed by all three Coalition members of the Committee, as well as one of the two Labor Opposition members.

Only Labor MLC Anthony D’Adam and Greens MLC David Shoebridge stood up for trans and gender diverse kids against this harmful and hateful Bill.

So, what happens next?

What happens next comes down to the NSW Government, and in particular to new(ish) Premier Dominic Perrottet.

As I indicated in the introduction, they must respond to the Final Report of Mark Latham’s Committee’s Inquiry into Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill by 7 March 2022 at the latest.

The simplest approach would be for Perrottet to reject both the Committee Report, and the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020, outright, and to instead stand up for the rights of all students – including all lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and nonbinary, intersex and queer students – to a safe learning environment.

But that outcome is by no means guaranteed. There are obviously some members within the Government who support Latham’s agenda attacking trans and gender diverse kids (starting with the three MLCs on his Committee).

Indeed, the Liberal Party Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Kevin Conolly, expressed his personal support for the Latham anti-trans kids Bill in his response to my letter to NSW MPs this time last year, asking them to reject the Bill (my original letter is here: NSW MPs can be champions for trans and gender diverse kids. Or bullies while I published Conolly’s response here: NSW Liberal Parliamentary Secretary for Education Supports Bill to Erase Trans Kids).

It is therefore entirely possible that Premier Perrottet, and the NSW Government, endorse some parts, or even all, of Mark Latham’s Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 before Monday March 7.

We could also see them introduce their own legislation on this subject, similar to and possibly inspired by the Latham Bill, in the following weeks or months.

If that happens, then it will take a collective effort just as strong, and just as broad-based, as the campaign against the Religious Discrimination Bill to ensure it is defeated.

We will need to fight like lives depend on it. Because they will. The lives of some of the most vulnerable members of our community: trans and nonbinary kids.

*****

For LGBTIQ+ people, if this post has raised issues for you, please contact QLife on 1800 184 527, or via webchat: https://qlife.org.au/ (between 3pm and midnight, every day)

Or contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.

All eyes will be on Education Minister Sarah Mitchell (front), and Premier Dominic Perrottet (back), in coming weeks as they announce the NSW Government’s response to Mark Latham’s Committee’s Inquiry into Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill.

If you have enjoyed reading this post, you can sign up to receive updates about this and other issues from this blog, via the right-hand scroll bar on desktop, or near the bottom of the page on mobile. You can also follow me on twitter @alawriedejesus

Footnotes:

^[i] Noting that, for the vast majority of trans and gender diverse young people, they do not access what is referred to here as ‘full medical gender transition’ until they are 18.

Private Lives. Public Discrimination. Political Exacerbation.

Posted on December 13, 2020 by Alastair Lawrie

In November, La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS) released ‘Private Lives 3: The Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQ People in Australia’.

Building on reports in 2005 and 2011, Private Lives 3 is Australia’s largest national survey of the health and wellbeing of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people.

Covering a diversity of topics, from households and relationships, to housing and homelessness, general health and wellbeing, mental health and wellbeing, alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and intimate partner and family violence (among others), it makes for both fascinating reading and invaluable research. I strongly encourage you to download and read it.

However, as someone with a particular interest in all things LGBTIQ discrimination, it is their section on ‘Discrimination, harassment and feelings of acceptance’ I will focus on today.

The Private Lives 3 findings in this area are, frankly, disturbing.

Asked, ‘to what extent do you feel accepted in the following situations?’, just 60.7% of LGBTIQ Australians answered ‘a lot’ or ‘always’ in relation to work.

That figure dropped to 55.3% in educational institutions, and 43.4% when accessing a health or support service.

Only 30.5% of LGBTIQ people said they felt accepted a lot or always in public (eg in the street/park), and a perhaps unsurprising but still shockingly low figure of 10.5% at religious or faith-based events or services.

It is also unsurprising that cisgender members of the LGBTIQ community reported higher rates of acceptance than trans and non-binary people.

For example, while 68.5% of cisgender men and 61% of cisgender women felt accepted a lot or always at work, this fell to 50% for trans women, 48.8% for trans men and just 43% for non-binary people.^[i]

There was a similar divergence in terms of acceptance by sexual orientation, with gay and, to a lesser extent, lesbian respondents reporting higher rates than bisexual, pansexual, queer and asexual people.

For example, while 69.6% of gay and 63.8% of lesbian people said they felt accepted at work always or a lot, just 53.6% of bisexual, 54.5% of pansexual, 54.5% or queer and 47.4% of asexual people said the same thing.^[ii]

The responses to the question ‘In the past 12 months, to what extent do you feel you have been treated unfairly because of your sexual orientation or gender identity?’ are just as disturbing (if not more). As the authors (Hill, Bourne, McNair, Carman and Lyons) observe on page 40:

‘Almost six in ten participants reported that they had been treated unfairly to some degree (either a little, somewhat, a lot or always) because of their sexual orientation in the past 12 months, with 4.5% reporting a lot or always. Over three quarters (77.5%) of trans and gender diverse participants reported that they had been treated unfairly to some degree because of their gender identity in the past 12 months, with 19.8% reporting a lot or always.’

Even more shocking are the high reported rates of experiences of vilification – and worse – based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. In the previous 12 months:^[iii]

34.6% of respondents reported experiencing verbal abuse (including hateful or obscene phone calls) due to their sexual orientation or gender identity
23.6% experienced harassment such as being spat at and offensive gestures
22.1% received written threats of abuse via emails or social media
14.6% experienced threats of physical violence, physical attack or assault without a weapon
11.8% experienced sexual assault
11.4% received written threats of abuse in other ways
10% experienced refusal of service
9.9% experienced refusal of employment or being denied promotion
5.3% received written threats of abuse via graffiti, and
3.9% experienced physical attack or assault with a weapon (knife, bottle, stones).

‘Overall, trans and gender diverse participants reported higher levels of harassment and abuse than cisgender participants. For example, a greater proportion of trans women (51.6%), non-binary participants (49.4%) and trans men (45%) reported verbal abuse in the past 12 months due to their sexual orientation or gender identity compared to 28.7% of cisgender women and 32.7% of cisgender men.’

This is nothing short of an epidemic of discrimination, harassment, vilification and violence against LGBTQ Australians on the basis of their sexual orientation and, especially, gender identity. And it is getting worse, not better.

For example, reported rates of verbal abuse increased from 25.5% in Private Lives 2 (released in 2011) to 34.6% in Private Lives 3; harassment such as being spat at and offensive gestures rose from 15.5% in PL2 to 23.6% in PL3; physical attack or assault with a weapon doubled, from 1.8% to 3.9%; and sexual assault quadrupled, from 2.9% to 11.8%.

Let me think, what happened in the period between Private Lives 2, and the survey period for Private Lives 3 (from 24 July to 1 October 2019), which could have caused greater homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in the Australian community?

It seems undeniable that the Coalition Government’s proposed plebiscite on same-sex marriage, and actual postal survey – and the toxic public debate surrounding both – has directly contributed to increased anti-LGBTQ prejudice.

Nor should we underestimate the negative impact of the ‘religious freedom’ movement which they deliberately unleashed, with the Religious Freedom Review in 2018, and the Morrison Government’s First Exposure Draft Religious Discrimination Bill which was released right in the middle of the Private Lives 3 survey period, in August 2019.

What should happen from here?

The Private Lives 3 survey results show us the scale of the problem: appalling rates of discrimination, harassment, vilification and violence against LGBTQ Australians on the basis of their sexual orientation and, especially, gender identity. And we have a pretty good idea about who is to blame (at least for making the situation much, much worse than it already was). But what is the solution?

I would argue the following three actions would be a good place to start (although I’m sure readers of this blog could offer other useful suggestions, via the comments section below):

Improve LGBTI anti-discrimination laws

The introduction of Commonwealth anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTI community, through the historic Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013, was an important step, although by no means the end of the journey.

As I have written previously, these laws need to be strengthened, including by:

Updating ‘intersex status’ to ‘sex characteristics’
Protecting LGBT students, teachers and other staff in religious schools against discrimination
Limiting overly-generous religious exceptions that permit discrimination against LGBT people across many areas of public life, and
Appointing a Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics at the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Discrimination in employment, especially against trans and gender diverse employees as identified in Private Lives 3, also needs to be addressed by explicitly including gender identity and sex characteristics in adverse action and unlawful termination provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

2. Introduce LGBTI anti-vilification protections

One of the long-standing, missing pieces of LGBTI law reform, at least at Commonwealth level, is protection against anti-LGBTI vilification. The high rates of hate-speech reported through Private Lives 3 has merely confirmed the urgency of addressing this gap.

As I hav consistently advocated over many years,^[iv] given homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia can be just as harmful as racism, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) should be amended to prohibit anti-LGBTI vilification on an equivalent basis to the prohibition of racial vilification in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

3. Publicly-fund programs against homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia

Being an advocate for LGBTI law reform, it is easy to forget that changing the law can only ever be one part of the solution – and often only a small part at that.

To address the ongoing, high levels of anti-LGBTQ discrimination in employment, healthcare, education and other areas of public life identified in Private Lives 3, we need well-funded, publicly-funded campaigns explicitly targeting homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

We also need our elected representatives to lead by example, by calling out prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, and making sure anti-LGBTIQ comments are never acceptable in public debate.

What is actually happening?

Unfortunately, when we examine what is being done in relation to the three actions described above, the answer is not much. In fact, worse than just political inaction, the Coalition Government seems intent on exacerbating these problems rather than solving them.

For example, the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill – which Attorney-General Christian Porter recently confirmed remained part of the Government’s legislative agenda – would make it easier for religious individuals and organisations to discriminate against LGBTIQ Australians, including by refusing to provide healthcare services that benefit members of our communities (for more, see ‘The ‘Bad Faith’ Religious Discrimination Bill Must Be Blocked’).

That same legislation also calculatingly, and explicitly, undermines state and territory anti-vilification laws (where they exist), by making it easier for people to make comments that ‘offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule’ LGBTI people as long as those comments are motivated by faith. This includes over-riding the ‘best practice’ Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas).

As for culture change, then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull first ‘gutted’ then abolished entirely the national, evidence-based program targeting bullying against LGBT kids in schools (Safe Schools).

Meanwhile, current Prime Minister Scott Morrison has publicly attacked school counsellors who support trans and gender diverse children, deriding them as ‘gender whisperers’ in a now-infamous tweet. And he has taken more concrete action to remove trans-inclusive toilet door signs in the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, than he has to implement his 2018 promise to protect LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination (for more, see ‘Scott Morrison’s Broken Promise to Protect LGBT Students is Now Two Years Old’).

The findings of Private Lives 3 reveal a bushfire of bigotry is burning in the Australian community – but far-too-often our elected representatives are the ones who are fanning the flames.

Of course, it isn’t just the Commonwealth Government who should be taking action to address discrimination, harassment, vilification and violence against LGBTQ Australians. Our state and territory governments, too, need to step up, including by modernising their own anti-discrimination laws.^[v] The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) in particular have fallen far, far below community standards.

Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory also need to introduce their own LGBTI anti-vilification laws (in addition to the Commonwealth), while it is probably fair to say all Governments could be doing more to combat homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia in their respective jurisdictions.

Nevertheless, I would argue that the sheer size of the challenge which confronts us, as so disturbingly revealed in the ‘Discrimination, harassment and feelings of acceptance’ pages of Private Lives 3, demonstrates a national approach is desperately needed.

That obviously means stopping those things which would simply make the problem worse – including by abandoning any Religious Discrimination Bill that would undermine the rights of LGBTIQ Australians. But it also requires positive steps to make things better.

We’ll find out in 2021 whether the Commonwealth Government, and Parliament more broadly, is willing to do that which is necessary – or allow anti-LGBTIQ prejudice to rage on.

Footnotes:

^[i] The rates of acceptance at health services were even lower, showing a significant drop-off for cisgender women. Specially, while 55.5% of cisgender men felt accepted ‘a lot/always’, this fell to 42.4% for cisgender women, 46.5% for trans women, 30.1% for trans men and just one in five non-binary people (21.5%).

^[ii] The rates of acceptance at health services were even lower. Only gay respondents felt accepted ‘a lot/always’ more often than not (54.8%), compared to just 40.1% of lesbian, 43.8% bisexual, 37.3% pansexual, 26.7% queer and 33.3% asexual respondents.

^[iii] Check out the full list on page 40 of the Private Lives 3 Report.

^[v] For a comprehensive discussion of LGBTI anti-discrimination protections around the country, see: ‘A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws’.

28 Reasons to Vote Yes on Marriage Equality

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Alastair Lawrie

Untitled design-3

Vote yes on marriage equality because love does not discriminate, and neither should the Marriage Act

Vote yes for the tens of thousands of LGBTIQ Australian couples who are waiting for the opportunity to marry in front of family members and friends – just like anybody else

And for other LGBTIQ couples who don’t want to get married, but who deserve the right to make that decision for themselves and not have it imposed upon them by the Parliament

Vote yes out of respect for the couples where one or both have died over the past 13 years without being allowed to marry the love of their life[i]

And to stop this same fate being experienced by other couples in the future

Vote yes because no-one should be forced to divorce their spouse in order to have their gender identity recognised under the law[ii]

Vote yes because a successful marriage is based on the content of your character, not your sex characteristics[iii]

Vote yes to make it easier for LGBTIQ Australians to prove their relationships, especially when it matters most[iv]

Vote yes to recognise the marriages of thousands of LGBTIQ Australians that already exist, having wed overseas

And to ensure that, when some of those relationships break down, they are able to divorce[v]

Vote yes so that all members of a family are treated exactly the same under the law

Vote yes so that parents, and grandparents, and brothers and sisters, are able to attend the weddings of their family members

And so that the children of rainbow families can attend the weddings of their parents

Vote yes for all of the lesbian grandmas, gay uncles, bi aunts, trans nephews and intersex nieces, and queer cousins

Vote yes if you think that your child should be able to marry whoever they want to when they grow up

Vote yes if you think that every child should be able to marry whoever they want to when they grow up

Vote yes on marriage equality for your friends

And your colleagues

And your teammates

And your neighbours, and all of the LGBTIQ people in your community

Vote yes for the many young LGBTIQ Australians still struggling to comes to terms with who they are, wondering whether they are accepted

And for older LGBTIQ Australians who have experienced a lifetime of discrimination

Vote yes for every LGBTIQ Australian, to show them that they are not lesser and should not be treated as lesser under the Marriage Act

Vote yes because you are LGBTIQ yourself and this is a matter of pride

Vote yes because you believe in a fair go for all, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics

Vote yes because you think Australia can be a better, fairer and more inclusive country

And because you want to help make Australia a better, fairer and more inclusive country

Vote yes on marriage equality because all love is equal, and it’s time we changed the law to reflect that.

original_1495494419744.405

Footnotes:

[i] Like long-term LGBTIQ rights campaigners Peter and Bon, who were together for half a century, with Bon passing away earlier this year after having pleaded with Malcolm Turnbull to allow them to marry before he died – a plea that was ignored.

[ii] Australia was criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee earlier this year because of its policy of forced trans divorce. Find out more here.

[iii] To find out more about how discrimination in the Marriage Act affects people with intersex traits, see OII Australia’s submission to the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016.

[iv] Tragically, Tasmanian Ben Jago was unable to bury his de facto partner, or even attend his funeral, after his premature death (see this piece in the Guardian). While such discrimination is already unlawful, being married would make these situations far less common.

[v] Australia has also been criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee because of its failure to allow LGBTIQ couples that have married overseas to be able to divorce when those relationships break down. Find out more here.

7 things we need to do now

Posted on August 12, 2017 by Alastair Lawrie

Commonwealth_ Sex Discrimination Act 1984-3

At the end of a long week – which felt more like a month, and frankly had a year’s worth of ups and (mostly) downs – it’s time to take stock, and work out what we do next.

Thankfully, there are now two challenges to the Government’s pseudo postal plebiscite (aka the Australian Bureau of Statistics ‘Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey’), which will be heard by the High Court on September 5 and 6.

However, while we might hope for the best – that the judiciary finds this extraordinary and unprecedented process to be an unconstitutional abuse of executive power – we must also prepare ourselves for the worst.

In that context, I offer the following seven suggestions of how we should respond to Malcolm Turnbull’s supposed statistical survey:

Enrol

The Government has already announced that, in order to participate in the ‘plebiscite’, you must be on the electoral roll by 6pm on Thursday 24 August.

So, the most immediate thing you need to do is:

Check your enrolment here.

If you aren’t enrolled, enrol to vote here.

Even if you are currently intending to boycott the ‘Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey’, you might end up changing your mind in the coming weeks and months, so please update your enrolment now and leave your options open in September and October.

Engage

This step is harder than the first, especially when emotions are understandably running high and we feel that the process that has been inflicted upon us is incredibly unfair (because it is). But that doesn’t mean the pseudo postal plebiscite is necessarily going away either.

Which means we need to engage, with our family members (including extended family), our friends, our colleagues, our peers, basically anyone and everyone we have connections with, to encourage them to support the fight for equality.

Of course, there are limits to this ask. Don’t engage with trolls, or with people who show they are unwilling to genuinely engage with you (neither group is worth your time). And don’t engage where you don’t feel comfortable, and above all, safe in doing so.

But, please have these conversations wherever and whenever you can, because that’s how we remind people who are already on our side what they need to do, and how we persuade the people who have yet to make up their minds.

Educate

This step, which is related to number two, is much more difficult again. It is hard when the decision by the Turnbull Coalition Government to hold this pseudo postal plebiscite has already politicised every minute, every hour and every day of our lives – politicised our mere existence – until this farce is over.

And there’s no denying the perennial problem that in struggles for justice, the burden of educating the oppressors falls disproportionately on the oppressed (when people should instead bear responsibility for educating themselves).

Nevertheless, there will still be many opportunities in the months ahead for genuine education. To provide information to people who may not have thought about LGBTIQ issues before. To answer questions from those who don’t know a lot about us, or our relationships, but who show a sincere desire to learn.

Of course, for many in our community, for different reasons, this task is not something they are willing or able to do – and that’s totally okay. And for anyone who does decide to engage in these discussions, you should always remember that your personal information is yours, and you should only disclose as much as you feel comfortable. Nobody has a ‘right’ to know everything about you.

But for those of us who are in a position to have these conversations, we should. And if you need help getting started, Australian Marriage Equality/The Equality Campaign have produced a number of useful resources (including translations into Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic, Hindi, Greek, Italian, and Spanish).

Vote

We’ve reached the fourth step on my list, and the third most important: to vote (and obviously to vote yes).

Before I start, I’d like to say to anyone who is currently considering boycotting the pseudo postal plebiscite that I completely understand where you’re coming from. It is a bullshit process, imposed for bullshit reasons. It is inherently offensive to LGBTIQ people; it is insulting, and demeaning, to our relationships.

In fact, the decision by Liberal and National MPs and Senators to adopt a supposed statistical survey on marriage equality made me even more angry, and frustrated, about a subject that I thought had exhausted my reserves of both. Despite all this, I have decided that I will vote, and I urge you to do the same, for the following reasons:

a) Most LGBTIQ people think we should

Before the Government’s appalling actions this week, PFLAG and just.equal conducted a survey of 5,261 LGBTI Australians to ascertain their views about a possible postal vote, and how we should respond as a community.

Only 15.2% thought we should boycott such a vote, with more than half publicly opposed to a postal ballot but prepared to win it if it’s held. And, even though that survey was conducted based on a hypothetical, and the subsequent reality might have changed the depth of our feelings, I don’t think it has altered our thinking.

b) Most LGBTIQ community organisations think we should

For people who have been engaged in LGBTIQ advocacy for a while, it’s no secret we sometimes don’t play well together. Which makes it all the more extraordinary that nearly all major community organisations have come out in the past 24-48 hours to say that, while they oppose the pseudo postal plebiscite, they will fight to win it.

How ironic that Malcolm Turnbull’s divisive debate, that will cause such disharmony across Australian society, could end up being a powerful unifying moment within the LGBTIQ community itself.

c) Pragmatic politics

There are several political reasons why we should vote, including the obvious one: that a yes vote offers the best chance (albeit no guarantee) of marriage equality being passed this year. A significant yes majority will also diminish the influence of the groups that oppose LGBTIQ rights, like the Australian Christian Lobby, not just on this topic but across all issues.

But, even if we lose (which is a real possibility, given a voluntary postal opinion poll has significant flaws, and skews towards older, more conservative voters, effectively stacking the decks against us), the closer the loss the easier it will be for Labor and the Greens to introduce marriage equality in future.

d) Personal

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have a strong personal motivation to campaign for equality: the desire to finally marry my fiancé of seven and a half years. However, as much as I love Steven – and trust me, it’s a lot – he’s not the reason I will be voting, and voting yes.

Teenage Alastair is. Who realised he was gay on his first day at a religious boarding school in Brisbane in 1991. Who took about a month to understand just how homophobic his surrounding environment was, and became depressed. Who, from the second term of year 8, until the final term of year 12, thought about ending his life every day, multiple times a day, because he feared he would never find acceptance for who he was.

Alastair aged 12 to 17 probably wouldn’t have understood the ethical reasons why some people in the LGBTIQ community might have wanted to boycott a supposed statistical survey. But he definitely would have understood the message of a large no victory: that his country was explicitly rejecting him, and anyone like him.

So, I’m voting for him.

Many of us have been that person. Most of us know someone who has been through something similar. All of us can empathise with what that fear, that isolation, that loneliness, feels like. So let’s stand up for all of them – including those who tragically didn’t make it – and vote yes.

Take Care of Yourself

We already know that, if the pseudo postal plebiscite is not rejected by the High Court, the next four months are going to be awful. There will be misinformation, and outright lies, spread against us by those who wish to do us harm. Indeed, their hate-based campaign has already started – so much for the Prime Minister’s so-called #respectfuldebate.

We should not underestimate the impact that this battle will have on all of us, or the fact it will disproportionately affect the more vulnerable groups within the LGBTIQ community itself (including young people, trans and gender diverse people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people and rainbow families and their children).

Throughout this process, we must all take care of ourselves.

There are services in place that can help if you need it, including:

QLife, the national telephone and web counselling service for LGBTI people, families and friends. Call 1800 184 527, 3pm to midnight everyday.

Lifeline, call 13 11 14, anytime.

For a longer list of the support services available to LGBTIQ+ community, see this article by SBS.

Beyond these formal services, however, there are plenty of other ways to practice self-care, and self-love, during this time. If you need to talk to someone, reach out to your friends and other people in your life. If you are finding yourself negatively affected by the public debate and/or social media, switch off. If you have to take a break from the campaign, do – drop out for as long as you need.

For other tips on what you can do to take care of yourself, see the helpful info-graphic produced by ACON at the end of this article. If you are a member of an LGBTIQ family, you can also check out this handy guide produced by Rainbow Families. And if you are aware of, or come across, other useful resources, please don’t hesitate to share them in the comments below.

And Each Other

The other, equally important, part of this equation is to look out for, and take care of, each other.

It is difficult to imagine a process that causes more damage, or has the prospect for greater division, than the three-month long, voluntary, non-binding ‘Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey’ designed by the Turnbull Government.

Indeed, that may have been the intention of some of those who advocated this option. At best, Coalition MPs and Senators have shown that they are completely indifferent to the harm the pseudo postal plebiscite will cause the LGBTIQ community.

They don’t care about us. So we must care about each other.

Be pro-active. Check in with the people around you to see they are okay. If you notice someone struggling, ask how they’re going, give them a call, have a cup of tea, offer a helping hand – or a shoulder to cry on.

Over recent decades, the LGBTIQ community has had to endure many challenges, to show resilience in the face of adversity. We need to do so again now.

**********

These last two steps – Take Care of Yourself. And Each Other – aren’t just the catchphrase of a trashy 90s talk-show host. They are also the two most important things we need to do in the coming weeks and months. Because while winning this vote, and achieving marriage equality, might be important, we – the members of the LGBTIQ community – are more important.

Before I finish, however, there is one last point that I need to make:

Allies – It’s time to step up

I still remember early last year (although it seems longer) standing in front of a room full of mostly-cisgender, heterosexual activists and asking them for their help to win ‘Plebiscite 1.0’ – because the LGBTIQ community could not possibly win it on our own.

Well, that plea is just as relevant, probably even more so, for ‘Plebiscite 2.0’, especially with the challenges of voluntary postal voting, and an overall process engineered to benefit the side of those opposed to marriage equality.

If you consider yourself an ally of the LGBTIQ community, it’s time to step up. If you are a family member, friend, colleague or peer of an LGBTIQ person, it’s time to get involved.

Enrol. Engage and Educate (and, if you need to, educate yourselves). Vote, and encourage others to vote, too. I also have no doubt it will be an awful experience for many of you to see the trauma inflicted on the LGBTIQ people close to you – so look after them, as well as yourselves.

Most importantly, stand with us, by our sides, in this battle. Sit with us, and listen to us, if we ask you to. And fight for us, because we need you to.

And, if you’re not convinced by me, listen to the excellent advice of the even more excellent GetUp marriage equality campaigner, Sally Rugg:

“If you have ever put a rainbow filter on your Facebook profile picture, return your ballot paper the day you receive it.

If you have a friend, a family member or a co-worker who is LGBTIQ+, return your ballot paper the day you receive it.

If you have ever cringed at the words “one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” at a wedding, return your ballot paper the day you receive it…

The postal plebiscite will be won or lost on how allies of the LGBTIQ+ community step up over the next two months.”

Over to you.

20728981_10156450372983222_6525108270708426171_o

The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia Survey Results, Part 6: Discrimination in Health, Community Services or Aged Care

Posted on June 4, 2017 by Alastair Lawrie

This post is the final in a series of six, reporting the results of The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia survey I conducted at the start of 2017[i].

In all, 1,672 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) Australians provided valid responses to that survey.

In this article, I will be focusing on their answers to four questions, asking whether they have experienced discrimination in health, community services or aged care, whether any of this discrimination occurred in the past 12 months, whether this discrimination related to religious organisations and to provide an example of the discrimination that they experienced.

The responses reveal a disturbing pattern of discrimination across these areas, with many LGBTIQ Australians denied equal access to services simply because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

The question about whether any of this discrimination occurred in relation to religious organisations is important because of the existence of ‘special rights’ to discriminate for these bodies in most states and territories[ii], leaving LGBTI people in these circumstances without any legal redress.

I also encourage you to read the examples provided in response to question four, which reveal some of the different types of discrimination that LGBTIQ people have encountered in health, community services or aged care.

The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia-11

Question 1: Have you ever experienced discrimination because of your sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in relation to health, community services or aged care

Question 2: Has one or more instances of this discrimination (in health, community services or aged care) occurred in the past 12 months?

Question 3: Did any of this discrimination (in health, community services or aged care) occur in relation to a religious organisation?

Of the 1,611 people who answered the first question, 345 – or 21% – said they had experienced discrimination in one of these areas at some point in their lives.

Disturbingly, 189 survey respondents[iii] reported experiencing anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in health, community services or aged care in the past 12 months alone. In other words, more than half of those who had experienced discrimination in these areas reported at least one instance of this mistreatment just in 2016 – that is simply shocking.

The proportion reporting discrimination by religious organisations was 3.7%[iv]. This is thankfully lower than the rates reported for discrimination by religious organisations in education (Survey Results, Part 4) and employment (Survey Results, Part 5), although this nevertheless represents roughly 1 in 25 LGBTI people exposed without adequate protections from anti-discrimination schemes.

LGBTIQ Status

There were some significant differences in reported discrimination in health, community services and aged care between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer survey respondents:

Lesbian

26.5%[v] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
14.5%[vi] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
3.5%[vii] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Gay

19.8%[viii] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
9.9%[ix] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
2.7%[x] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Bisexual

16.1%[xi] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
8.7%[xii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
4.7%[xiii] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Transgender

35.3%[xiv] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
24.9%[xv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
3.8%[xvi] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Intersex

40%[xvii] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
13.3%[xviii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
6.7%[xix] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Queer

29.6%[xx] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
19.2%[xxi] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
4.6%[xxii] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

LGBTIQ Category	Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in health, community services or aged care (%)?
LGBTIQ Category	Ever	Last 12 months	By religious organisation
Lesbian	26.5	14.5	3.5
Gay	19.8	9.9	2.7
Bisexual	16.1	8.7	4.7
Transgender	35.3	24.9	3.8
Intersex	40	13.3	6.7
Queer	29.6	19.2	4.6

The highest rate for lifetime discrimination was from intersex respondents, although the small sample size for that group (n=15) means this figure should be treated with some caution. It is also interesting that intersex people reported average rates of recent discrimination in these areas.

Of the other groups, gay and particularly bisexual respondents reported lower rates of both lifetime, and recent, discrimination in health, community services and aged care than other groups.

In contrast to earlier survey results, lesbians reported higher rates of discrimination on both measures. One possible explanation is greater involvement, and therefore potential exposure to discrimination in, family-related health and community services.

Once again, higher rates of discrimination, and especially recent mistreatment, were reported by transgender and, to a slightly lesser extent, queer survey respondents.

It is particularly disturbing that one in five queer respondents, and fully one quarter of trans people, experienced discrimination in these areas in the past 12 months alone.

Taking a closer look at the trans cohort, and in particular respondents who identified as both trans and another LGBQ category, the figures were as follows:

Trans and lesbian: 37.2%[xxiii] ever, and 25.6% in the last 12 months

Trans and gay: 40.4%[xxiv] ever, and 28.1% in the last 12 months

Trans and bisexual: 26.7%[xxv] ever, and 16.7% in the last 12 months, and

Trans and queer: 40.1%[xxvi] ever, and 32.2% in the last 12 months.

These groups were largely consistent, although trans and bi respondents reported lower rates on both measures, while trans and queer respondents were more likely to experience recent discrimination (at almost 1 in 3 people overall).

Finally, there is little that stands out in the reported rates of discrimination by religious organisations in these areas, with the range from 2.7% (gay) to 6.7% (intersex).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

The rates of discrimination for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people were higher for both lifetime discrimination, and especially for recent discrimination, than for their non-Indigenous counterparts.

On the other hand, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people reported lower rates of discrimination by religious organisations in health, community services or aged care. The full figures are as follows:

24.6%[xxvii] reported discrimination in these areas at some point (compared to 21.3% of non-Indigenous people)
17.5%[xxviii] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months (compared to 11.5% of non-Indigenous people) and
1.8%[xxix] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation (compared to 3.7% of non-Indigenous people).

	Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in health, community services or aged care (%)?
	Ever	Last 12 months	By religious organisation
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander	24.6	17.5	1.8
Non-Indigenous	21.3	11.5	3.7

Age

Aged 24 and under

15.7%[xxx] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
10.8%[xxxi] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
3.3%[xxxii] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

25 to 44

31.1%[xxxiii] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
15.8%[xxxiv] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
3.9%[xxxv] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

45 to 64

23.7%[xxxvi] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
9.1%[xxxvii] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
4%[xxxviii] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

65 and over

25.8%[xxxix] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
9.7%[xl] experienced any instance in the past 12 months
9.7%[xli] reported discrimination by a religious organisation

Age cohort	Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in health, community services or aged care (%)?
Age cohort	Ever	Last 12 months	By religious organisation
24 and under	15.7	10.8	3.3
25 to 44	31.1	15.8	3.9
45 to 64	23.7	9.1	4
65 and over	25.8	9.7	9.7

Given their lesser years of life experience, it is perhaps unsurprising that young people experienced lower levels of lifetime discrimination in these areas. Although the fact that more than 1 in 10 LGBTIQ people aged 24 or under reported homophobic, biphobic, transphobic or intersexphobic discrimination in health or community services over the past 12 months is alarming.

What is perhaps most surprising is that people aged 25 to 44 were most likely to report both lifetime discrimination in these areas (with almost a third of respondents affected), as well as anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in the past 12 months (at almost 1 in every 6 respondents).

Meanwhile, the highest rate of reported discrimination by religious organisations was from LGBTIQ people aged 65 and over – which is possibly explained by recent interactions with religious-operated aged care services.

State or Territory of Residence

The final demographic category according to which I have analysed the survey results is the state or territory of residence:

New South Wales

21.4%[xlii] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
10.9%[xliii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
2.7%[xliv] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Victoria

22.8%[xlv] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
12.4%[xlvi] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
4%[xlvii] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Queensland

22%[xlviii] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
11.4%[xlix] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
6.1%[l] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Western Australia

22.1%[li] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
12.8%[lii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
2.7%[liii] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

South Australia

19.5%[liv] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
14.3%[lv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
3%[lvi] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Tasmania

16%[lvii] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
10.4%[lviii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
1.9%[lix] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Australian Capital Territory

23.2%[lx] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
10.7%[lxi] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
7.1%[lxii] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

Northern Territory

20%[lxiii] reported discrimination in these areas at some point
10%[lxiv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
5%[lxv] experienced discrimination by a religious organisation

State or territory	Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in health, community services or aged care (%)?
State or territory	Ever	Last 12 months	By religious organisation
NSW	21.4	10.9	2.7
Victoria	22.8	12.4	4
Queensland	22	11.4	6.1
WA	22.1	12.8	2.7
SA	19.5	14.3	3
Tasmania	16	10.4	1.9
ACT	23.2	10.7	7.1
NT	20	10	5

These results were largely consistent across state and territory boundaries (thus lending weight to the overall figures, discussed earlier).

The lowest lifetime rates of discrimination in health, community services or aged care were in Tasmania, while the highest (but only just) were in the ACT. Meanwhile, South Australians were most likely to experience discrimination in the last 12 months, while LGBTIQ people in Queensland and the ACT reported the highest rates of discrimination in these areas by religious organisations.

**********

Question 4: If you feel comfortable, please provide an example of the discrimination you experienced in relation to health, community services or aged care [Optional]:

This question allowed respondents to provide examples of the anti-LGBTIQ discrimination they had experienced and, just as with previous survey results, these comments are often confronting to read.

A lightly-edited[lxvi] version of the answers to this question – providing examples of homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic discrimination in relation to health, community services or aged care – can be found at the following link:

question-4-examples-of-health-community-services-and-aged-care-discrimination

These answers demonstrate a range of different ways in which LGBTIQ people were mistreated in comparison to cisgender heterosexual people, including:

One of the most common stories was denial of LGBTIQ relationships, including refusal to treat partners as next of kin:

“I was asked if I was in a relationship and what not and gender during a visit to a new and local doctor, I said yes and gender non-binary and I was put down as single and female. Single because my partner was a woman and the system didn’t have an option for same sex couples and it was “easier”.”

“Having my female partner not being able to be with me in emergency because it was family and partners only. (Had no family in the region at the time)”

“My wife was in emergency at [redacted] Hospital and the doctor did not want to discuss with me her condition or provide me with a carers certificate because of our sexuality”

“While an inmate in the mental health unit, the doctor assigned to me was very uncomfortable when my partner was in the room. And even though I gave permission, he would not treat my partner with respect or discuss my care with her.”

“At a hospital where my partner of over ten years was not accepted as my next of kin. I had to put my son down”

“Was at a hospital after becoming very ill and my girlfriend was holding my hand. Once my nurse noticed, her attitude towards me changed and she told me that “friends” couldn’t visit”

“While my girlfriend was in hospital and had come in via ambulance I was denied access to her / the ability to see her while she was in the emergency department because a receptionist didn’t believe we were partners. Clearly thought I was ‘just a friend’”

“I was critically ill and my partner was ignored by hospital staff as my next of kin”

Another common story related to an assumption that being gay (or bi, or trans) automatically equates to being at high risk of HIV, including being subjected to additional testing or ‘safety precautions’ – or, in one case, being denied testing:

“Feeling like the dentist did not want to treat me because I answered the at risk of HIV questions (in the 90s)”

“Disclosing that I had a same sex partner opened me up to extra medical testing before procedures, including unnecessary HIV testing unrelated to my procedure.”

“I was informed that due to being bisexual, I was at a high risk of STDs, regardless of the fact that I am married and in a monogamous relationship.”

“A doctor was dismissive of my health concerns and wrote me off as an HIV magnet for being transgender.”

“Because I am open about being gay, I have been repeatedly advised by health practitioners to have an HIV test when consulting them about a range of health issues that have no relation to HIV. Of course, I have had HIV tests and would do so again if I thought I had been at risk.”

“A GP refused to test me for HIV as he had “better things to do than take care of sexually promiscuous people like” me. I had not told him anything about my sex life apart from the fact that I was gay – this was purely a homophobic assumption on his behalf. He suggested I go to a free sexual health centre in the city instead.”

It is unsurprising that these attitudes translated to adverse treatment of people who are HIV-positive:

“A doctor was bombastic when I presented at ED when he learned I was HIV +. He just carried on about my HIV Status and not the issue I presented for”

Several respondents cited the blanket ban on sexually-active gay men donating blood as being anti-LGBTIQ discrimination:

“Apparently just cause I’m gay I can’t donate blood, even tho [sic] I get tested all the time probably more times than a straight person would in their life time”

“Gay men are not allowed to give blood if they’ve had sex within the past year. It is alienating and presumptuous”

This approach also applies to some transgender people:

“Refused to donate blood. Because blood donation is a purely altruistic act, this makes one feel apart from the community. The policy of the local blood collection organisations is to treat all transgender people like gay men, irrespective of the sex they were assigned at birth, the state of the individual’s legal document, the individual’s genitals, etc.”

There was a range of stories about homophobia from GPs:

“I had a sore throat and my GP suggested that it may be because men weren’t designed to suck cock.”

“Doctor called me a homo, and multiple doctors being uncomfortable discussing sexual health issues once finding out my sexuality.”

“Being told by a doctor that I am more prone to disease because I am homosexual”

“A GP at my local health centre treated me with caution and wrote a ridiculous warning on my medical file for anyone to see. “Warning: Homosexual relations”.”

Lesbian respondents also described a variety of discrimination they had experienced:

“Talking about sex with GPs and health providers, there’s an assumption that sex is only with the opposite sex and that nothing else is sexual. Even when in a monogamous same sex relationship doctors would assume and ask questions about male sex partners and dismiss my actual partner. Ie, could you be pregnant? When they know I’m a cis woman only having sex with a cis woman.”

“Local doctor told me that I couldn’t go on the pill to stop my painful periods due to endometriosis because I was not in a sexually active relationship with a man, that because I was lesbian and not at risk of falling pregnant there was no need to be put on the pill”

“I have had a doctor tell me that I shouldn’t get a pap smear because I had never had sex with someone who had a penis, which is just wrong information and could be detrimental to my health. This denial was also mixed with her confusion and homophobia around the fact that I was queer and I felt very uncomfortable and shamed.”

This included a particularly-horrific situation involving sexual assault:

“I have received many instances of refusal of care or denial of optimal care by health professionals because of my sexuality. But the one that still traumatises me is when I went for a Pap smear with a female gp and she inserted her fingers into my vagina (for what I now know is an optional test) without telling me. I screamed and told her to stop, but she continued saying people like me like this kind of thing…she raped me. While looking at me in the face. Because I am gay.”

As with previous survey results, the most frequent stories of discrimination came from trans respondents. This included blatant transphobia, as well as deadnaming and misgendering:

“I was referred to by a receptionist to one of her co-workers as ‘a dude who wants to cut his d*ck off.’ The other replied with ‘well, you don’t want those types to breed.’”

“In 2005 I was involved in a car crash which necessitated a precautionary visit to the emergency dept at [redacted] in Perth. An orderly could not contain his mirth at me being a transgender person and kept commenting about it and laughing at me several times over a period of hours while I was required to stay motionless on my back awaiting a spinal scan.”

“I was repeatedly misgendered by nurses in a public hospital despite my efforts to correct them”

“being continually misgendered and deadnamed at a hospital”

“No doctor has refused to treat me but I have had doctors refuse to refer to me as a male once they find out, or assume every ailment must be linked to being transgender.”

It also included a refusal to provide essential trans-related medical services:

“Doctor telling me I should not get PBS for testosterone because it’s a lifestyle choice not a medical condition”

“Had a doctor tell me to stop HRT because it was dangerous, he did not seem to think being trans was real.”

“Was prevented from getting access to medical treatment and to start my transitioning for over 6 yrs by doctors.”

“My first psychiatrist was a gatekeeper who denied me access to services essential to transition.”

Several trans respondents complained about systemic discrimination in place simply to access transition:

“I think having to get diagnosed with gender dysphoria and have your life torn open by a psychologist is fucking pretty discriminatory. It’s bullshit. My body, my rules.”

“the entire process for getting access to gender related assistance is transphobic”

This comment seemed to sum up the feelings of many:

“Most doctors are totally clueless about how to treat trans people.”

A concerning theme to several stories was homophobic, biphobic and transphobic treatment of LGBTIQ people accessing mental health services:

“I was in a psychiatric ward for severe mental health issues and I mentioned that I was queer. The registrar fixated on it and tried to make it out that my sexuality was the root of all my problems. He tried to pathologise it.”

“I also had a session with a counsellor who referred to me as having a split personality when they found out I was Transgender.”

“Psychologists were the worst, though. I have serious mental illness and part of the problem was sexual assault trauma and problems with harassment and discrimination because of being bisexual. The psychologists told me that it didn’t exist and that I had to choose and that “if you want women it means you need mothering in your relationships so work on that with men”. Dangerous lies.”

“My counsellor didn’t “believe” in LGBT people or issues and told me I just needed to “get a job, join a gym and eat healthy””

“In a psychiatric ward I got told that my being gay was a part of my mental illness and a contributing factor to my depression”

Domestic and family violence was also cited as an area of anti-LGBTIQ discrimination:

“I’ve contacted domestic violence places for support groups and been told ‘women only’ even though I’m non-binary, assigned female at birth, and don’t pass as male. When I’ve asked where I’m meant to go, they’re suggested men’s behavioural change programs (I was the victim, I ended up with PTSD!) and then said they had no idea.”

“DV situation cops didn’t take a woman abusing a woman seriously”

“Having no services for DV Support to get help after a 8 yr DV relationship. Mainstream services having no understanding of LGBTIQ relationships/ community”

Finally, there were several examples of anti-LGBTIQ discrimination on the basis of religious belief:

“I was hospitalised for a suicide attempt. While there, I was sent a chaplain instead of a nurse to watch me. He spent 6 hours telling me how I was going to hell and how much god hated me and my gender was all in my head.”

“I was offered help by the salvation army after I was forced to leave home. I was told that I could just go home, once I mentioned that the cause of my situation was abuse related to my sexuality, the belief seemed to be that I should somehow change my mind and then my parents would accept me.”

“I was refused for a counselling service because the organization was religion based and insisted they wouldn’t work with someone that was beyond help like me.”

“My job in regards to [employment-related organisation] was with a religious org and it ran aged care services. The org wouldn’t recognise an aging couple’s relationship and they were placed in 2 separate care homes”

**********

Conclusion

The results of these four questions have confirmed that homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic discrimination in health, community services or aged care is relatively widespread, and has a significant impact on many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians.

This includes more than 1 in every 5 respondents people reporting lifetime experience of such discrimination, with 11.7% reporting at least one instance of anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in health, community services or aged care in the last 12 months alone.

Some groups within the community reported even higher rates than these already high averages, with intersex and trans people, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people and people aged 25 to 44 particularly affected.

While the rates of discrimination by religious organisations were comparatively low, it is important to note than in most cases, such discrimination is entirely lawful, due to the wide-ranging and completely unjustified religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws in the majority of Australian jurisdictions.

The personal examples of discrimination in health, community services and aged care shared in response to question 4 demonstrate the different forms such prejudice can take, with many heart-breaking stories of homophobia, transphobia and even discrimination by mental health services.

As noted at the beginning of this post, this has been the last in my series of six articles reporting the results of my The State of Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia survey.

Thank you to all those people who participated in the survey, and of course to everyone who has read the results I have published. Hopefully, through this process we have demonstrated the ongoing problems caused by homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia in Australia – and the urgent need for our lawmakers and decision-makers to take action to address these issues.

Finally, if you would like to continue to receive articles on LGBTI rights, please sign up to this blog: on mobile, at the bottom of this page, or on desktop at the top right-hand corner of the screen.

**********

If this post has raised any issues for you, you can contact:

QLife, Australia’s national telephone and web counselling and referral service for LGBTI people.

Freecall: 1800 184 527, Webchat: qlife.org.au (3pm to midnight every day)

Lifeline: 13 11 14, lifeline.org.au

Footnotes:

[i] The previous posts can be found here:

Part 1: Verbal Harassment and Abuse

Part 2: Physical Abuse or Violence

Part 3: Where Discriminatory Comments Occur and Their Impact

Part 4: Discrimination in Education

Part 5: Discrimination in Employment

[ii] Noting that discrimination against LGBTI people accessing aged care services from Commonwealth-funded aged care facilities operated by religious organisations is prohibited by the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (although those same protections do not cover LGBTI employees in those facilities).

[iii] 343 people responded to question 2: 189 yes/154 no.

[iv] 344 people responded to question 3: 59 yes/285 no.

[v] 317 people responded to question 1: 84 yes/233 no.

[vi] 46 respondents.

[vii] 11 respondents.

[viii] 626 people responded to question 1: 124 yes/502 no.

[ix] 62 respondents.

[x] 17 respondents.

[xi] 508 people responded to question 1: 82 yes/426 no.

[xii] 44 respondents.

[xiii] 24 respondents.

[xiv] 365 people responded to question 1: 129 yes/236 no.

[xv] 91 respondents.

[xvi] 14 respondents.

[xvii] 15 people responded to question 1: 6 yes/9 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[xviii] 2 respondents.

[xix] 1 respondent.

[xx] 480 people responded to question 1: 142 yes/338 no.

[xxi] 92 respondents.

[xxii] 22 respondents.

[xxiii] 43 respondents total, with 16 yes to question 1 and 11 yes to question 2.

[xxiv] 57 respondents total, with 23 yes to question 1 and 16 yes to question 2.

[xxv] 120 respondents total, with 32 yes to question1 and 20 yes to question 2.

[xxvi] 183 respondents total, with 75 yes to question 1 and 59 yes to question 2.

[xxvii] 57 people responded to question 1: 14 yes/43 no.

[xxviii] 10 respondents.

[xxix] 1 respondent.

[xxx] 860 people responded to question 1: 135 yes/725 no.

[xxxi] 93 respondents.

[xxxii] 28 respondents.

[xxxiii] 431 people responded to question 1: 134 yes/297 no.

[xxxiv] 68 respondents.

[xxxv] 17 respondents.

[xxxvi] 274 people responded to question 1: 65 yes/209 no.

[xxxvii] 25 respondents.

[xxxviii] 11 respondents.

[xxxix] 31 people responded to question 1: 8 yes/23 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[xl] 3 respondents.

[xli] 3 respondents.

[xlii] 524 people responded to question 1: 112 yes/412 no.

[xliii] 57 respondents.

[xliv] 14 respondents.

[xlv] 378 people responded to question 1: 86 yes/292 no.

[xlvi] 47 respondents.

[xlvii] 15 respondents.

[xlviii] 245 people responded to question 1: 54 yes/191 no.

[xlix] 28 respondents.

[l] 15 respondents.

[li] 149 people responded to question 1: 33 yes/116 no.

[lii] 19 respondents.

[liii] 4 respondents.

[liv] 133 people responded to question 1: 26 yes/107 no.

[lv] 19 respondents.

[lvi] 4 respondents.

[lvii] 106 people responded to question 1: 17 yes/89 no.

[lviii] 11 respondents.

[lix] 2 respondents.

[lx] 56 people responded to question 1: 13 yes/43 no.

[lxi] 6 respondents.

[lxii] 4 respondents.

[lxiii] 20 people responded to question 1: 4 yes/16 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[lxiv] 2 respondents.

[lxv] 1 respondent.

[lxvi] In this context, lightly-edited includes:

-Removing identifying information

-Removing potentially defamatory comments and

-Removing offensive remarks.

I have also corrected some spelling/grammatical mistakes for ease of reading.

The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia Survey Results, Part 5: Discrimination in Employment

Posted on May 28, 2017 by Alastair Lawrie

This post is the fifth in a series of six, reporting the results of The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia survey I conducted at the start of 2017[i].

In all, 1,672 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) Australians provided valid responses to that survey.

In this article, I will be focusing on their answers to four questions, asking whether they have ever experienced discrimination in employment, whether any of this discrimination occurred in the past 12 months, whether this discrimination related to employment by religious organisations and to provide an example of the discrimination that they experienced.

The responses to these questions confirm that too many LGBTIQ Australians have to worry about discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status in the workplace on top of the usual career and financial worries.

The question about whether any of this discrimination occurred in relation to employment by a religious organisation is important because of the existence of special rights to discriminate for these employers in most states and territories, leaving LGBTI employees in these circumstances without any legal redress.

I also encourage you to read the examples provided in response to question four, which reveal some of the many different types of employment-related discrimination that LGBTIQ people have encountered.

The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia-11

Question 1: Have you ever experienced discrimination because of your sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in relation to employment (including as an employee, contract worker or job applicant)?

Question 2: Has one or more instances of this employment-related discrimination occurred in the past 12 months?

Question 3: Did any of this discrimination occur in relation to employment, or an application for employment, with a religious organisation?

Of the 1,622 people who answered the first question, 491 – or 30% – said they had experienced employment-related discrimination at some point in their lives.

Disturbingly, 235 survey respondents[ii] reported experiencing anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment in the past 12 months alone. That is 14.5% of the total, or 1 in every 7 people who completed the survey.

The proportion that reported employment-related discrimination by religious organisations was 6.1%[iii]. This is thankfully much lower than the proportion that had reported discrimination by religious schools (in Survey Results, Part 4) – although that is likely a reflection of the expansive reach of religious schools, and comparatively smaller employment footprint of religious bodies.

Nevertheless, most of those 6% probably had no recourse to anti-discrimination protections given the excessive, and unjustified, exceptions provided to religious organisations in most Australian jurisdictions.

LGBTIQ Status

There were some significant differences in reported employment-related discrimination between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer survey respondents:

Lesbian

31.6%[iv] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
15.3%[v] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
7.8%[vi] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Gay

34.3%[vii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
13%[viii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
5.9%[ix] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Bisexual

20.3%[x] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
11.1%[xi] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
4.3%[xii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Transgender

44.4%[xiii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
29.2%[xiv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
6.8%[xv] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Intersex

73.3%[xvi] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
40%[xvii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
20%[xviii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Queer

30.3%[xix] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
16.9%[xx] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
6%[xxi] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

LGBTIQ Category	Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment (%)?
LGBTIQ Category	Ever	Last 12 months	By religious organisation
Lesbian	31.6	15.3	7.8
Gay	34.3	13	5.9
Bisexual	20.3	11.1	4.3
Transgender	44.4	29.2	6.8
Intersex	73.3	40	20
Queer	30.3	16.9	6

The highest rates for all three were from intersex respondents, although the small sample size for that group (n=15) means those figures should be treated with some caution.

Of the other groups, there was a large degree of consistency, with two main exceptions:

Bisexual respondents reported significantly lower rates of employment-related discrimination in all three areas (ever, last 12 months and by religious organisations), and
Transgender respondents reported significantly higher rates of lifetime employment-related discrimination, and particularly in the last 12 months (although, interestingly, not in terms of discrimination by religious organisations).

Taking a closer look at the trans cohort, and in particular respondents who identified as both trans and another LGBQ category, the figures[xxii] were as follows:

Trans and lesbian: 37.2%[xxiii] ever, and 25.6% in the last 12 months

Trans and gay: 47.4%[xxiv] ever, and 28% in the last 12 months

Trans and bisexual: 36.1%[xxv] ever, and 24.6% in the last 12 months, and

Trans and queer: 42.2%[xxvi] ever, and 25.9% in the last 12 months.

While there was little variation in terms of discrimination over the past 12 months (at a disturbingly high 1-in-4 across all groups), trans and queer, and especially trans and gay respondents were more likely to report lifetime discrimination in employment than the other two groups.

Overall, then, while lesbian, gay and queer people reported close-to-(the LGBTIQ)-average levels of employment-related discrimination across the board, bisexual respondents reported lower rates.

On the other hand, intersex and transgender respondents were particularly affected by discrimination in employment, with people who were both trans and gay and (to a lesser extent) trans and queer more likely to report lifetime discrimination.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

The rates of discrimination for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people were higher for all three questions than for their non-Indigenous counterparts, although thankfully in relation to discrimination in the past 12 months and by religious organisations these rates were only slightly elevated:

37.9%[xxvii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point (compared to 30% of non-Indigenous people)
15.5%[xxviii] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months (compared to 14.5% of non-Indigenous people) and
6.9%[xxix] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation (compared to 6.1% of non-Indigenous people).

	Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment (%)?
	Ever	Last 12 months	By religious organisation
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander	37.9	15.5	6.9
Non-Indigenous	30	14.5	6.1

Age

These results are potentially the most interesting of this post:

Aged 24 and under

20.9%[xxx] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
13.8%[xxxi] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
3.8%[xxxii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

25 to 44

36.9%[xxxiii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
16.2%[xxxiv] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
7%[xxxv] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

45 to 64

48.5%[xxxvi] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
16.1%[xxxvii] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
11.3%[xxxviii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

65 and over

41.9%[xxxix] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
None experienced any instance in the past 12 months
16.1%[xl] reported discrimination at a religious school or college

Age cohort	Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment (%)?
Age cohort	Ever	Last 12 months	By religious organisation
24 and under	20.9	13.8	3.8
25 to 44	36.9	16.2	7
45 to 64	48.5	16.1	11.3
65 and over	41.9	0	16.1

Young people obviously have less employment history, and therefore the lower rates of reported lifetime discrimination are perhaps unsurprising. However, the fact that almost 1-in-7 suffered employment-related discrimination during the past 12 months alone, when a significant share would not even be in the workforce at all, is shocking.

Lifetime rates of discrimination then increase for the next two age groups, peaking at almost 1-in-2 for LGBTIQ people aged 45 to 64. In effect, just as many people in this cohort have experienced discrimination in employment as those who have escaped its impact – another remarkable statistic.

Perhaps just as depressing is the fact that for both people aged 25 to 44, and 45 to 64, the rates of recent anti-LGBTIQ prejudice in employment were roughly the same – at a time when they should be more ‘secure’ in their careers, almost 1-in-6 experienced employment related discrimination in the last year alone.

State or Territory of Residence

The final demographic category according to which I have analysed the survey results is the state or territory of residence:

New South Wales

28.7%[xli] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
13.4%[xlii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
5.7%[xliii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Victoria

33%[xliv] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
14.2%[xlv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
6.6%[xlvi] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Queensland

36.6%[xlvii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
17.5%[xlviii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
6.9%[xlix] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Western Australia

32.7%[l] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
17.3%[li] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
5.3%[lii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

South Australia

26.3%[liii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
15.8%[liv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
7.5%[lv] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Tasmania

20.4%[lvi] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
9.3%[lvii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
3.7%[lviii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Australian Capital Territory

19.6%[lix] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
14.3%[lx] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
3.6%[lxi] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

Northern Territory

35%[lxii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
10%[lxiii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
15%[lxiv] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

State or territory	Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment (%)?
State or territory	Ever	Last 12 months	By religious organisation
NSW	28.7	13.4	5.7
Victoria	33	14.2	6.6
Queensland	36.6	17.5	6.9
WA	32.7	17.3	5.3
SA	26.3	15.8	7.5
Tasmania	20.4	9.3	3.7
ACT	19.6	14.3	3.6
NT	35	10	15

These results were largely consistent across state and territory boundaries (thus lending weight to the overall figures, discussed earlier).

Tasmania and the ACT reported low lifetime rates of employment-related discrimination, with Queensland recording the highest rates (alongside the Northern Territory, although note the latter’s small sample size, n=20).

Queensland and Western Australia reported higher levels of anti-LGBTIQ prejudice in the workplace during the last year – more than 1-in-6 employees reporting recent discrimination. Tasmania (and the Northern Territory) reported the lowest rates – but that nevertheless reflected the fact 1-in-10 LGBTIQ people were discriminated against in 2016 alone.

**********

Question 4: If you feel comfortable, please provide an example of the discrimination you experienced in relation to employment [Optional]:

This question allowed respondents to provide examples of the anti-LGBTIQ discrimination they had experienced and, just as with previous survey results, these comments are often confronting to read.

A lightly-edited[lxv] version of the answers to this question – providing examples of homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic discrimination in relation to employment – can be found at the following link:

question 4 examples of discrimination in employment

These answers demonstrate a range of different ways in which LGBTIQ people were mistreated in comparison to cisgender heterosexual employees, including:

Being refused employment

“I was told “we don’t hire faggy trans here, or anywhere in this town. If you come back in this shop, we’ll shoot you.””

“I was hired as CEO for a charity. After three interviews, a psych test and a video presentation, I was told I was the leading candidate by a mile. We negotiated start date and salary. As part of the process, I disclosed I was married to a man. That disclosure happened at 305pm on a Monday. At 740am Tuesday, I received an email advising me that the offer was withdrawn. They, of course, did not say it was because I was gay. I, apparently, did not demonstrate sufficient interest in the job.”

“Denied a job based on cultural reasons – sexuality not part of our culture therefore cannot teach about said culture. Offer of employment rescinded.”

“Got a job interview but as soon as they saw that I was a dyke I didn’t even get a chance to speak to them they acted awkward and uncomfortable and said I wouldn’t suit the job.”

Being fired from employment

“when they found i was homosexual i was sacked from my position as bar attendant in a league club”

“Refused employment because of my transgender status, the supervisor found a reason for dismissal on day one and asked what dose oestrogen I was on as my voice is deep and upsetting my patients”

Losing shifts, especially in casual or part-time employment

“My old maccas got a new restaurant manager who hated me because of it and stopped giving me shifts.”

“At my last job my employer found out I was a lesbian and coincidentally I stopped receiving any shifts.”

“I was in a casual position, the moment I began to transition however, I was shoved sideways and out the door. No more hours.”

Contracts not being renewed

“My contract was not renewed because I am gay”

“I believe that when my homophobic boss found out I was gay, she discontinued my contract”

Being denied other employee entitlements

“I wasn’t allowed to nominate my partner to receive my superannuation in the event of my death.”

Some survey respondents indicated they were punished because of fears (real or perceived) that clients would react badly to their sexual orientation or gender identity:

“I have been turned down for some jobs where I would be dealing with the public in hospitality because I was a non passing trans woman.”

“I had a job interview with an organisation specialising in disability support in the Midland area (Western Australia), to work as a disability support officer. I had already done exactly the same work for about a year with two other similar organisations which both wanted me to take on more hours. Because those organisations were both a long drive from where I lived I wanted to change to a closer employer. At the end of the interview one of the two interviewers said they could not employ a transgender person because their clients would not accept me. Funny that, their clients must have been very different from the other clients who accepted me without question.”

“Clients have refused to hire me and have been open about it being related to my sexuality. My clients’ clients have been very vocal and made complaints about hiring me because of my work with young people and their sexuality/gender identity/expression”

For some, workplace homophobia, biphobia, transphobia or intersexphobia was explained by a need to ‘protect’ children:

“I was sacked in 1987 because I was gay and working as a swimming teacher with children. Despite my full accreditation this was perceived to be inappropriate. I had no resources to take legal action as I was just 19, from a poor background and despite being the regional swimming champion the community had turned against me.”

“One employer was so uncomfortable with my sexuality that he would not allow his 3 daughters to have contact with me despite bringing them into the office frequently.”

“In 2012 my boss suggested that we have 2 Christmas dinners. One for people with kids, and a separate one with just me and the 2 bosses because “it’s not appropriate to allow a gay man near the kids of other staff members”. I worked at an adult store (sex shop), where I thought I’d be accepted by open minds. I was wrong.”

“I was doing work with teenagers at my church’s youth group, but when I refused to hide my sexuality I was told that I was being a bad influence on the kids and would let the devil into their lives and condemn them to damnation. I was no longer allowed to work with the teenagers.”

This last example points to a much larger issue – employment-related discrimination by religious organisations, as evidenced by the following responses:

“I was a charge nurse of an operating suite that had successfully turned around the fortunes of a religious based hospital: a new manager was appointed that decided to “root out’ all the homosexuals working in the organisation.”

“I have been asked to sign a document that guarantees my not wilfully “sinning” (listing homosexual acts as one of those sins) in order to be considered for employment at a religious school.”

“After completing my course with results and references from teachers and clinical placements which were far superior to other students, I received no interviews or call backs from employers from religious organisations. I did find work at a private company in my field and am doing well in my job. I feel like my talents and abilities were denied to the clients of these religious employers because of my gender identity and my employment options were severely limited.”

“I work as a nurse at a religious based hospital and I experience bullying/ homophobic remarks frequently at work”

“company bought out by exclusive brethren, all gays got sacked, was obvious, but they got away with it. “company restructure”…”

“I was employed by the Salvation Army. They told me not to have a photo of me and my partner on my desk even though all the Het people had their photos on their desks. I was then told they accept me being a Lesbian provided I’m not a practicing Lesbian. They put a private detective on me and harassed me out of my job.”

“I was required to resign my job in 2006 when I came out as gay because my employer was religious. The job had only tangential connection to his religion. I chose not to fight the discrimination – I had lost the heart to work there any more any way. I was then unemployed for 8 months.”

“Before I moved into my own practice, I was working in a Baptist school on a maternity leave position. The position then became a permanent role. My manager wanted me to apply and she put my name forward. They pretty much told her that they did not want me in the role because of my “sexuality”…”

“Many years ago I won a job in a religious school, was offered the job and then the offer was withdrawn with the explanation that I would not fit the culture.”

The public service was not exempt from examples of anti-LGBTIQ discrimination (although some were more historical than others):

“Being told my sexuality would count against me in an interview for a public sector position.”

“In 2012 I was appointed as [senior position] in the [redacted] government. It was a high level and high profile appointment. The Deputy Secretary of the Department who appointed me, wrongly informed the Secretary (i.e. CEO) of the Department that I was gay, in the period when I was coming on board in the role. His response? He told the Dep Sec “I hope he’s not going to flaunt it”. This from one of the highest paid public servants in the entire public service in [redacted] – and the very person who was supposed to safeguard the rights of me and all his other employees. Unbelievable!”

“In the early 1990s, I was working in the Commonwealth Public Service in Sydney. I applied for a job at a higher level and was accepted for interview. I was told that although I had come first in the selection process, the job was going to be given to the second-rated candidate because as he was a “family man” he deserved the promotion (and increase in income) more than I did.”

“Face significant formal (policy) and informal (cultural attitudes) discrimination in the workplace as an ADF member. Whilst this is improving, it is wrong to say that I am not discriminated against – e.g. placed in the wrong accommodation area, having to adhere to binary uniform codes, etc.”

As suggested by the statistics earlier, transgender respondents provided a range of examples of workplace discrimination:

“Very difficult to apply for job when all experience and jobs were held under previous identity”

“I was told that because I wasn’t using my legal name in my application, I couldn’t be input into their system, and hence did not receive an interview.”

“After losing my job, at every interview I’ve been told I ‘got the job’, and once they receive my legal documents and tax file number they never get back to me. At one interview, they told me that my gender identity was a ‘mental illness’ and they needed a doctor’s note before I could work.”

“HR seemed to take me seriously at first but whenever I would make a small mistake she would blame it on my transition saying that I was a different and less capable person (primarily she blamed hormone therapy). Most of the time she would talk about me to other people and I needed to quit that job for my own mental health.”

“Employers felt uncomfortable with my gender identity and asked me not to wear a binder at work. I’ve started presenting as only female at work now. It’s killing me”

“Despite the fact I had a name tag that said Adam and had introduced myself as trans, I was constantly called she. I complained to a manager and it happened again, in a group chat to all employees and managers I yet again said in the kindest way that I do wish to be respected and not misgendered and later that night and from then on was still misgendered.”

“Refusal to change name in email system. Misgendering during heated discussions (seemingly deliberate). Office doesn’t have gender-neutral toilets, asked to use toilets of assigned gender. Could go on…”

“When I finally told my work I was Transitioning I was made to feel an outcast and I finally left the position”

“My work requires i wear a male uniform regardless of my gender identity. I didn’t get a choice of what gender uniform. Only got to choose the size”

Disturbingly, some survey respondents reported complaining about the anti-LGBTIQ conduct they experienced, but then no (or insufficient) action being taken:

“I have also been the subject of religious based hate speech in a non religious school in the lunch room and that was let slide despite my protestations.”

“Gay and AIDS jokes being made, and then on one occasion when i complained to the manager, the manager made me stay home whilst she investigated the complaint, which made me feel as if I was being punished and not the offender.”

A few respondents noted the difficulty of proving homophobic discrimination:

“It’s really hard to explain, you know when people are making decisions about you without actually saying out loud it’s homophobia. It can be very obscure & hard to prove, but its there alright.”

“I can’t prove it but have a strong suspicion my position was made redundant because my boss found out I was gay”

This final comment explicitly describes discrimination by religious organisations, the fact that it remains completely lawful in most circumstances, and the impact that this has:

“This is an area that I get upset about, especially working for a religious organisation. The invisibility and intolerance by some people is hard to bear, especially knowing that religious organisations are exempt from the Anti-Discrimination Act. Living with the fear that if management realise you are gay and sack you for being gay – this is TOTALLY LEGAL. This is totally unjust and disgraceful that anti-discrimination law actually endorses and permits discrimination. I recently had a new manager who, though looking cool, held some very conservative views. I didn’t dare sound him out on gay issues, because I would have been lectured that I was an abomination for being gay (as other people have told me). This leads me to not reveal my true identity at work and to live in some fear of discrimination (knowing the law does not protect me)”

**********

Conclusion

The results of these four questions have confirmed that homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic discrimination in employment is relatively widespread, and has a significant impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians.

This includes 3 in every 10 respondents people reporting lifetime experience of such discrimination, with 1 in 7 reporting at least one instance of anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment in the last 12 months alone.

Some groups within the community reported even higher lifetime rates than this already high average, with intersex and trans people, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people and people aged 45 to 64 particularly affected.

While the rates of discrimination by religious organisations were comparatively low, this is likely explained by the lower numbers of people employed in this sector (especially compared to the far higher proportion of students in religious schools).

The personal examples of employment-related discrimination shared in response to question 4 demonstrate the many different forms such prejudice can take, with a particular focus on transphobia, and discrimination by religious organisations (noting that such mistreatment is entirely lawful in most jurisdictions due to religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws).

As noted at the beginning of this post, this has been the fifth in my series of six articles reporting the results of my The State of Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia survey. The remaining article, which will focus on discrimination in health and other areas, will be published within the next week.

If you would like to receive updates of these results, please sign up to this blog: on mobile, at the bottom of this page, or on desktop at the top right-hand corner of the screen.

**********

If this post has raised any issues for you, you can contact:

QLife, Australia’s national telephone and web counselling and referral service for LGBTI people.

Freecall: 1800 184 527, Webchat: qlife.org.au (3pm to midnight every day)

Lifeline: 13 11 14, lifeline.org.au

Footnotes:

[i] The previous posts can be found here:

Part 1: Verbal Harassment and Abuse

Part 2: Physical Abuse or Violence

Part 3: Where Discriminatory Comments Occur and Their Impact

Part 4: Discrimination in Education

[ii] 490 people responded to question 2: 235 yes/255 no.

[iii] 490 people responded to question 3: 99 yes/391 no.

[iv] 320 people responded to question 1: 101 yes/219 no.

[v] 49 respondents.

[vi] 35 respondents.

[vii] 629 people responded to question 1: 216 yes/413 no.

[viii] 82 respondents.

[ix] 37 respondents.

[x] 513 people responded to question 1: 104 yes/409 no.

[xi] 57 respondents.

[xii] 22 respondents.

[xiii] 367 people responded to question 1: 163 yes/204 no.

[xiv] 107 respondents.

[xv] 62 respondents.

[xvi] 15 people responded to question 1: 11 yes/4 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[xvii] 6 respondents.

[xviii] 3 respondents.

[xix] 485 people responded to question 1: 147 yes/338 no.

[xx] 82 respondents.

[xxi] 29 respondents.

[xxii] I have excluded the figures for discrimination by religious employers, which ranged from 1.8% for trans and gay, to 8.1% for trans and queer, with trans and lesbian, and trans and bisexual, sitting in the middle.

[xxiii] 43 respondents total, with 16 yes to question 1 and 11 yes to question 2.

[xxiv] 57 respondents total, with 27 yes to question 1 and 16 yes to question 2.

[xxv] 122 respondents total, with 44 yes to question1 and 30 yes to question 2.

[xxvi] 185 respondents total, with 78 yes to question 1 and 48 yes to question 2.

[xxvii] 58 people responded to question 1: 22 yes/36 no.

[xxviii] 9 respondents.

[xxix] 4 respondents.

[xxx] 871 people responded to question 1: 182 yes/689 no.

[xxxi] 120 respondents.

[xxxii] 33 respondents.

[xxxiii] 431 people responded to question 1: 159 yes/272 no.

[xxxiv] 70 respondents.

[xxxv] 30 respondents.

[xxxvi] 274 people responded to question 1: 133 yes/141 no.

[xxxvii] 44 respondents.

[xxxviii] 31 respondents.

[xxxix] 31 people responded to question 1: 13 yes/18 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[xl] 5 respondents.

[xli] 530 people responded to question 1: 152 yes/378 no.

[xlii] 71 respondents.

[xliii] 30 respondents.

[xliv] 379 people responded to question 1: 125 yes/254 no.

[xlv] 54 respondents.

[xlvi] 25 respondents.

[xlvii] 246 people responded to question 1: 90 yes/156 no.

[xlviii] 43 respondents.

[xlix] 17 respondents.

[l] 150 people responded to question 1: 49 yes/101 no.

[li] 26 respondents.

[lii] 8 respondents.

[liii] 133 people responded to question 1: 35 yes/98 no.

[liv] 21 respondents.

[lv] 10 respondents.

[lvi] 108 people responded to question 1: 22 yes/86 no.

[lvii] 10 respondents.

[lviii] 4 respondents.

[lix] 56 people responded to question 1: 11 yes/45 no.

[lx] 8 respondents.

[lxi] 2 respondents.

[lxii] 20 people responded to question 1: 7 yes/13 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[lxiii] 2 respondents.

[lxiv] 3 respondents.

[lxv] In this context, lightly-edited includes:

-Removing identifying information

-Removing potentially defamatory comments and

-Removing offensive remarks.

I have also corrected some spelling/grammatical mistakes for ease of reading.

alastairlawrie

lgbti advocate & activist, writing about anti-discrimination and vilification law reform, equality and human rights

Tag Archives: LGBTIQ

Albanese Government Must Do Better, and Do More, on LGBTIQ Rights in Second Year

The Jobs and Skills Summit and LGBTIQ Australians Part 2

The Jobs and Skills Summit and LGBTIQ Australians

Not Going Backwards is Not the Same Thing as Going Forwards

If you thought the Religious Discrimination Bill was bad, wait til you hear about Mark Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill

Private Lives. Public Discrimination. Political Exacerbation.

28 Reasons to Vote Yes on Marriage Equality

7 things we need to do now

The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia Survey Results, Part 6: Discrimination in Health, Community Services or Aged Care

The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia Survey Results, Part 5: Discrimination in Employment