In Conversation with Deaf Rainbow UK

Queermunity interviews Abigail Gorman, Former Vice Chair of Deaf Rainbow UK. Trigger Warning: This article contains mentions of child abuse.

Could you tell us a bit about what it means to be Deaf and LGBTQIA+?

From the 70s onwards we had the Brothers and Sisters Club. It’s a lot more positive now but at the time homophobia was rife. LGBTQ+ people were Othered and excluded, and if they went to a Deaf club, they weren’t treated equitably there either. The Brothers and Sisters Club was set up to create a safe place for LGBTQ+ Members of the Deaf community. There is a strong sense of community with that as well. Nowadays things evolve and communities change: Deaf people are more likely to be within hearing mainstream communities. This is both positive and negative.

I came out when I was 19, which I suppose is kind of late in some ways. At that time, there weren’t a lot of young people in Brothers and Sisters. So, I had to think: do I follow my lesbian identity, or do I follow my Deaf identity? Is there no way for me to combine the two and have the space for that? I grew up in the Deaf community and had those cultural experiences, but I wanted to explore my sexuality and that community too. Unfortunately, trying to access services was challenging. Sometimes, I had to fight for access to a community that wasn’t easily accessible. I spent a lot of time masking and not understanding. I can’t speak for other people and their experiences, but that was my experience of trying to access the LGBTQ+ community at that time. I think the Deaf community now has maybe become more integrated. We are more comfortable with our identities in a way that maybe we weren’t before. The acceptance of those minorities in Deaf culture is more widely accepted.

"I had to think: do I follow my lesbian identity, or do I follow my Deaf identity?"

How has the community adapted to the pandemic? What more could people who aren’t in the Deaf community do to help?

A friend and I contacted Global Pride on Twitter last year. We kind of said, look, we really want to attend, is it accessible? There was some confusion. They said that it wasn't possible to organise interpreters in a short timeframe. We pressed them on this matter. They said they had their wires crossed and had ASL interpreters booked for it. We asked for a meeting and explained why it was important to have International Sign interpreters.

So, my friend and I took on the responsibility of arranging Global Pride. We spent 27 hours coordinating it, and it was exhausting. But coordinating it meant that we had interpreters throughout the 27-hour period. They were chopping and changing all the time, but it was seen by 56 million people the world over. I think that that is just a snapshot of what access could look like, and that was done in the space of a week by two people. People talk about how hard it is, but it can be done. We proved that it can be done. I would like other people to think about how accessibility can happen. It doesn’t need to be difficult and complicated.

"I would like other people to think about how accessibility can happen. It doesn’t need to be difficult and complicated."

I am putting together a report about interpreting in LGBTQ+ spaces and how that can be encouraged. One thing about coronavirus is that everyone has transitioned online. This has meant that accessibility has kind of been in the back of people’s minds. But what I would like to see is, when we go back to our real lives, will that carry on? Because I don’t want Deaf people to constantly feel as though their access is an afterthought. It shouldn’t be. They should be in there from the start. I want that to be a priority when we have moved past this pandemic. Yes, we’ve all adapted. We’ve all made changes. We’ve all gotten used to it, but there are a few things I’d like to see continue.

Would you say there have been positive things to come out of the pandemic? In terms of accessibility exposure.

I think coronavirus has kind of highlighted some of the flaws that were there before. So, with Pride, for example, often we’d have to fight for things to be accessible, and sometimes they’d scrabble around and find an interpreter at the last minute. If I go in person to Pride, maybe having an interpreter is not their initial thought - but when someone appears on a Zoom screen, suddenly people go, oh ok this person needs access. If there’s nothing there, it’s really obvious. Suddenly, people are more accountable because it’s more visible. The pandemic, if nothing else, has made people more accountable for that. It reminds people that we are here.

However, I’m not holding my breath that this continues.

What could the LGBTQ+ community itself do to better support their Deaf members?

Again, access. We are always the afterthought, and it shouldn’t be that way. If you are releasing a resource: make sure it’s accessible. If you’re organizing an event: make sure it’s accessible. Representation matters. We need to ensure Deaf people are involved at every level. Because the LGBTQ+ community experiences oppression all the time, but that’s compounded for Deaf people who are also part of that community.

What’s really interesting is that we are talking about how racism and other ‘-isms’ are unacceptable. Of course that’s true. But audism (the oppression of Deaf people) is one of those -isms that people accept and take for granted. There’s a lack of accessible information on health and well-being for Deaf people. In Scotland, there are higher instances of HIV within the Deaf community, and that’s because there’s a lack of accessible information for Deaf people about practicing safe sex. In cases of domestic abuse, violence occurs because people don’t understand it’s abuse, or they lack the information or can’t access communications services. Access to information is equally as crucial when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community. LGBTQ+ people are out there, but we don’t always have the opportunity to engage with them, because we can’t access the same resources. We can’t learn if those resources aren’t accessible, and so we don’t know if our identity is fully formed which means we are not given the chance to form a stronger sense of identity.

"We can’t learn if those resources aren’t accessible...which means we are not given the chance to form a stronger sense of identity."

Going back to global pride: in a perfect world, what would an accessible pride look like?

The answer is involving Deaf people. It’s about having accessibility, because I think, when people think about the word accessibility they think of ramps and wheelchairs. They don’t think about participation. If you just throw an interpreter in who isn’t prepared they are going to struggle to interpret. It’s not just about the language necessarily. It’s about making sure the information is accessible. It’s about making sure that you use your space appropriately when you do that type of interpreting. It’s not linear, you know - word equals sign. When interpreters work, they process information into a second language. I think they should be appropriately paid for the work they do, as well. That’s something about incorporating Deaf people at every stage of the planning process. If someone doesn’t know how to make an event accessible, bring in the Deaf people who do know. They know what they need in terms of access. That goes back to what I said before about being involved from the outset in the planning process.

Can you tell us your plans for the future? And what you’d like to see happen long-term, based on your own experiences.

Oh, that’s a big question. At the moment, I’m studying an MSC in gender sexuality and law.

There’s a rich queer history available to us. I’ve started looking into Deaf queer history, and it’s almost non-existent. I think Deaf and disabled people were excluded from LGBTQ+ history for a really long time, and I would love to see more about that. I think that legacy, that history is really important, we need to know where we came from, we need to know the history of how our communities evolved.

"We need to know where we came from, we need to know the history of how our communities evolved."

I’d love to see youth clubs for Deaf young LGBTQ+ people as well. In my previous role, I worked as a young person’s violence advisor and I supported children who had experienced domestic abuse. I remember one boy who was very difficult to engage with, I found him very challenging. He’d been abused, and he was really hard to engage, but he was also gay. And he felt, ’Where is my safe space?’ If he went to an LGBTQ+ youth club they were predominantly hearing, he couldn’t understand them and they couldn’t communicate. But, if he went to a Deaf club it would be very heteronormative. So, often, he would get teased for being gay or Othered. There was no safe space for him to just be. I would really love to see more Deaf youth clubs available for younger members of both communities.

And other out role models as well - so teachers and other professionals, you know, often feel they are required to keep that part of their identity a secret. Really I would just like to see equity and equality. But I do want to see Deaf and LGBTQ+ people able to have a safe space available to them. We are still fighting for resources. Why are we still fighting for this? We shouldn’t be. But we are. In regards to Deaf Rainbow, I’ve stepped down now, but when it was established, our aim was to remove some of those systemic barriers. In some ways, it’s good that we can become the cultural hub and safe space that keeps those communities together, but we are also having to advocate too. I would like to see a point where we don’t have to do that advocacy work, because we aren’t an afterthought. If everything was accessible –if everything was inclusive – we wouldn’t need to do that work. That’s what equity and equality would look like in that community.

"I do want to see Deaf and LGBTQ+ people able to have a safe space available to them."

I’m currently doing some research for a book chapter that I’m writing about European LGBTQ+ people and their experiences. One of the questions I ask is: how do you feel as a Deaf LGBTQ+ person when you face those barriers? They often say: I face those barriers anyway as a Deaf person. But once you add the intersection of LGBTQ+ as well, it becomes compounded. They become used to it and accept it, but I don’t think anyone should get to the point where they are facing those kinds of systemic barriers, and they just accept it, because they are used to it.

Do you have any advice or words of wisdom for readers who are Deaf and LGBTQ+, and coming to terms with that intersectionality?

I’d love to say... you know... go and immerse yourself in the community and find out everything you can about it! But I suppose that’s not really possible at the moment because of the pandemic, but more officially I would say, go explore the community and don’t be afraid of doing that. I think, for some Deaf people, they might not use sign language -- people identify as hard of hearing and they might not know sign language. This makes them feel nervous when it comes to immersing themselves in a new community, because it’s an additional identity on top of an identity that is already fully formed. But we will welcome you into the community. We are happy to share our culture. We are happy for you to become a part of that culture. Don’t be afraid to take that first step. Just go and do it. There’s that great quote [by Martin Luther King, Jr.]: ‘Faith means taking the first step, even when you can’t see the whole staircase.’ You don’t know what to expect, you don’t know what’s coming, but you should take that step anyway, and have faith that the LGBTQ+ community and the Deaf community will accept you with open arms. In the words of Katy Perry, ’Let your colours burst’. [Laughs]

Changing directions a bit, could you now tell us a bit about the Hungary Parliament Case?

What’s happening in Hungary ties into our discussion of intersectionality, because the European Union for the Deaf is an international NGO that advocates for Deaf people and their language rights, but the Vice President is also a member of the Hungarian party that voted for Deaf LGBTQ+ people to be barred from adopting. There is outrage that a member of the European Union of the Deaf would fight to promote Deaf peoples’ language rights while taking away someone else’s rights. So, there was a line drawn in the sand where people said, look, in terms of intersectionality, you want to fight for the Deaf identity and their rights, and try to remove that barrier and that oppression, but you can’t, at the same time, oppress LGBTQ+ people. We recognize that we are Deaf first, but those other intersectional identities are important as well. We are not just Deaf: we are Deaf and. We can’t fight to remove our oppression, if we are removing the rights of other aspects of our identity.

The law is clear: LGBTQ+ couples can adopt, but opposite-sex couples will receive priority, so that would mean that my girlfriend and I wouldn’t be able to adopt together. I could adopt, but they wouldn’t recognize my girlfriend and I as a couple. They kind of said, ’We aren’t really discriminating, we are just making sure that straight people are the priority.’ They couldn't see how it was discriminatory. The politician who voted for this explained why he thought this was okay in an interview. However, if I took at what he said and applied it to the deaf community, it would look something like this:

‘The aim first is a hearing family which means a man and a woman who are hearing can adopt children. Other people like Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of hearing, oral... all of them in that group can adopt children. However, it has to be in a different way. They have to ask the minister. The minister will decide to approve the request or not. As for the law, the first goal is a hearing family. You need to understand first that those people can adopt children, but the priority will be the married hearing couple.’

Does this sound like equal human rights?

It’s that kind of layered discrimination.

People fought and challenged it, and eventually the Vice President stepped down. People talk about ‘cancel culture,’ but that’s gaslighting. You said this. You invalidated our feelings, our human rights, and our trust. We are not doubting someone’s commitment to the Deaf community. Everyone said, ‘He stepped down, but he’s a really good man.’ This may be true, but, at the same time, he breached a community’s human rights and that wasn’t acceptable. There was a lot of debate within the Deaf community about this which was really interesting.

"People talk about ‘cancel culture,’ but that’s gaslighting. You said this."

Could you tell us about the Deaf community at the international level? For instance, what is the United Nations doing to help the Deaf?

The UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) feels a little bit weak and vague –if you know how to use it properly, it works. It also works if you layer it with other pieces of legislation, but not as a full piece of convention. When it talks about reasonable adjustments, it doesn’t even say what a ‘reasonable adjustment’ really is. It’s open to constant reinterpretation. In Article 24, which talks about education, it says there should be ‘an environment which is accessible.’ Well okay, but what does that mean? If we provide, you know, flashing alarms - is that enough? If a child goes out to play at break time, do they have an interpreter with them? Are they in Deaf schools, should they be in Deaf schools?

My problem with that is how it views inclusion. They promote inclusion, but in some ways, what we want is segregation. And I say that in a positive way. We need discrete environments that prioritize our language use, but the UN encourages integration into mainstream education. This is just not effective; it’s not meeting a need. So again, it’s a mixed bag, it has some great points, but it also… really doesn’t.

In that case, do you think the regional European level is any better than the international?

Not really, no. It’s funny –I’m also a part of the World Federation of the Deaf, I’m part of their human rights expert group. And at the moment we are writing a response called the Report of the Independent Expert on Protection against Discrimination and Violence on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity for the OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). We are working on this, and the issue of how some of it is great and some of it... not so much. We are trying to think about how we can map that. For example –in Sweden? Brilliant. They have mandatory education on LGBTQ+ issues. But the question is, ‘Is it accessible?’ So, if a country is brilliant with LGBTQ+ education, but that education is not accessible to everybody, how do we benchmark and measure success? We haven’t quite figured out how to word that yet, but that’s what we are working on at the moment.

"If a country is brilliant with LGBTQ+ education, but that education is not accessible to everybody, how do we benchmark and measure success?"

Would you say that the goal of international human rights protection is to provide a basic level of rights that is digestible to a wide range of countries? Or is the goal to write legislation that is comprehensive in its protections of queer, disabled people?

I don’t see why we can’t have both, to be quite honest. You have to recognize that some areas are more privileged than others. If you have access to a good education, you understand human rights more. You have knowledge, you are informed, and you recognize that you can use the law to your advantage, and that you can follow through if you need to.

"You have knowledge, you are informed, and you recognize that you can use the law to your advantage."

For some people, who don’t have access to education in the same way, you’re starting at a different point. You have to go in and lay that groundwork, so your aspirations look different. I think that, in developed countries, they have a lot of those foundations already in place. You find that, in this convention, you have five years to provide access. Some of them don’t even have that, so you’re starting from a different point.

We need to be aware that it’s about the practical applications where, if someone is behaving in a way that is discriminatory, or people are discriminated against, you need to unpack why this is happening. You can’t just say, ‘Do it this way,’ and expect people who are ingrained in a certain mindset to change radically because someone tells them to. You need to work from a point of consultation where you take baby steps, as you help people to see from a point of view different to the one they already have. You don’t want people to go, ‘But what do you bloody know? You can’t tell me what to do!’ It’s a different point in the conversation. We need to be practical and realistic.

Article Written By Abigail Gorman (Interviewee) (She/Her)

and Queermunity (Interviewer)