VOTE: Queer WG

Hey Cat! This is such an awesome idea, and I really welcome this proposal. +++++ :)

Hi Cat! Thank you for moving forward this proposal. I'm not against the motion, but I have a few concerns/questions maybe you can address?
- Although I agree with the principles of supporting the LGBTQ+ community, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of creating a WG in YOUNGO to address it. We have an Anti-Oppression WG. Would the creation of a LGBTQ+ divert capacity from the AOWG that is already operating at low capacity?
- I'm afraid I also don't fully comprehend the purpose of this WG. Could you maybe elaborate on the operations of such a WG when you say raising issues around UNFCCC and YOUNGO, providing some examples?
Thanks!

Hi Nhattan,

Of course and thank you for raising the questions!

a) The point of the Queer WG is to address Queer issues and for members of the Queer community to connect with each other. Yes, that means this isn't a policy working group but a social working group to facilitate and connect members of the Queer community within YOUNGO in a safe environment. The emphasis for this WG is really on the safe environment. The WG really is for people who self-define as being LGBTQ+ and therefore can discuss their oppressions within political institutions (specifically the UNFCCC) and how to feel more comfortable and confident in raising their voice within YOUNGO and the system.

Unfortunately, there are still many countries which are not accepting of the LGBTQ+ community and actually criminalise and issue the death sentence for members of the community. Because of this, this community really needs to be safe guarded and discussed in isolation so those who want to join and whom maybe from these members of states (or even people whom just don't feel comfortable being out and open), can do so without fear of being judged and by knowing they are talking to their community and they are not in danger of going back to their country/delegation/friends/families and as such be put in danger. Unfortunately, a lot of communities still don't recognise the struggles of LGBTQ+ people and the oppression they face.

the AOWG is obviously by it's nature for all oppressions. This is great and definitely needed within YOUNGO, BUT because of this and speaking from experiences at COP's - that doesn't create a safe space for LGBTQ+ to raise their concerns (because by doing so may potentially be putting their livelihood at danger). As a lot of communities don't recognise the oppression for LGBT people (as it's still criminalised globally), it wouldn't be fair to say this would be understood entirely or would be safe entirely in a global WG.

b) The purpose of the WG just to clarify is to provide a safe space for LGBTQ+ people within YOUNGO. How this operates as we know depends entirely on how the members of the WG would like it to operate. As members of YOUNGO may not be open about their gender or sexual identity (for reasons stated above), I can't assume how many (if any) people would join this group and what oppressions they have faced. I speak from my personal experience that it has prior been hard to talk about your partner, your life and activities/groups you are involved in, and this does affect your ability to build relationships with people and to execute your aims you have come to UNFCCC to do.

I hope this has clarified your questions and concerns :-)

If you have any more questions, I am happy to have a Skype call (either open or one-on-one) or answer via email.

Thanks,
Cat

I'm confused: do we need to vote in order to form working groups? I thought we were allowed to self organise and form our own sub groups however we liked? I don't remember ever being asked to vote to form a WG, they just formed...

But if we do need to vote, im personally in favour. I expect people to have some further questions about the relevancy but I believe Cat has answered well and would only add that I think our approach to justice has to be intersectional and not limited to "climate justice"

Thank you Nhattan for seeking clarification over this initiative, you raise pertinent questions.

To quote Lord John Browne the author of 'The Glass Closet' - "In order for employees to do great work, they can’t devote a quarter of their brain power to hiding their sexual orientation, employees perform best when they are applying their whole brain to their job."

Cat, I think this is a brilliant idea, thank you for developing this proposal and for taking the time to elaborate the envisioned role of the Queer WG within YOUNGO, I agree with the emphasis on having a 'safe environment' for self-expression within a professional/work space where one is actively engaged.

Saluting the LGBTQ+ movement and their achievements in transforming social and cultural attitudes
toward this diverse population, I feel that YOUNGO in solidarity with others of like mind has a responsibility to uphold and contribute to the attainment of equality in professional/work spaces.

Highlighting that professional/work spaces in so many places the world over are not LGBTQ+ friendly, I strongly feel that allowing for such an environment within YOUNGO, improves this discourse and is consistent with global efforts towards inclusion.

Appreciating the fact that for some, the Queer WG could be the only space they have access to where they can attempt to be themselves; with regards to their sexual/gender identity, I believe the Queer WG will send the message: "It is OK, you can bring your whole self to work/activism."

Sympathetic of the unique challenges and level of risk faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, I support the separation of the Queer WG from the Anti-Oppression WG as this will make it possible to understand the activism climate for the LGBTQ+ participants and how to improve it.

Recognizing that the biggest obstacle to achieving LGBTQ+ equality in the professional/work spaces is the lack of protected status for LGBTQ+ individuals I second the exemption of the Queer WG from regulation/policing.

Acknowledging the importance and the benefits of having a Members-Resource Group for the LGBTQ+ participants (in this case a Queer WG), I offer my commitment and full support to professional/work spaces equity for sexual minorities.

The creation and adoption of the Queer WG by YOUNGO would be evident progress on LGBTQ+ equality in the professional/work spaces.

Going forward the Queer WG (if and when it is voted in) should:
a) Consider its interaction with straight allies without jeopardizing the safety it is so much trying to create.
b) Develop content for the YOUNGO sites relevant to /aimed at the LGBTQ+ participants

Irrespective of sexual/gender identity it is better for everyone to bring their authentic self to work. - www.glasscloset.org

Hi All,

Maybe we don't need to vote for forming WG's, I will seek clarification.
Pawa - thank you for your support, it is much appreciated. I completely agree with the questions you raise and this will definitely be the first areas of focus.

Thanks!
Cat

Great initiative Cat, whether or not a vote is needed it is great to start these discussions. We should bear in mind that those participating in discussion here are those who already feel comfortable and safe to discuss LGBTQ+ issues in a semi-public online forum and try to come up with mechanisms to ensure that private input can be given without fear of who may be seeing it xxx

Hello,

To help put Cat's proposal into perspective, here is a short interview by Goldman Sachs of former CEO of BP - Lord John Browne on the importance of bringing your whole self to work. http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/talks-at-gs/lord-john-browne-folder/video-01.html

Irrespective of sexual/gender identity it is better for everyone to bring their authentic self to work. - www.glasscloset.org

Thanks Cat and Pawa for the clarifications! ++ from me :)

Hi Cat,

Thanks for the great initiative which I fully support :) Just a quick clarifying and hopefully, helpful note on whether we need a vote (and sorry for the cross-posting on the mailing list!): There is nothing in the YOUNGO rules and procedures that specifically states that there needs to be a vote to create a working group. However, there is wording on decisions related to 'normal governance' and 'major decisions' being stipulated as voting issues. By most interpretations this would include working group creation. But, given that this hasn't been past practice, and that our decision making rules have a lot of ambiguity, then we can probably say that a vote isn't necessary.