Connect with us

Commentary

Social inclusion key to equity in the Americas

Betilde Muñoz-Pogassian of OAS underscores need for intersectionality

Published

on

Dr. Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian is the director of the Organization of American States’ Department of Social Inclusion of the Secretariat for Access to Rights and Responsibilities. (Photo courtesy of Geovanny Vicente Romero)

Editor’s note: Geovanny Vicente Romero is the Washington Blade’s newest contributor who seeks to highlight the LGBT rights movement in Latin America and efforts to extend rights to these communities.

Women’s empowerment, eradicating hunger and poverty and promoting the inclusion of people who are vulnerable. Many of those who are often treated as second-class citizens — such as people of African descent, indigenous people and members of the LGBTI community — do not have equal access to basic benefits and services as well as the protection human rights in general. These issues are part of the life and works of Dr. Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, director of the Organization of American States’ Department of Social Inclusion of the Secretariat for Access to Rights and Equity.

Muñoz-Pogossian is Venezuelan with a PhD in political science from Florida International University in Miami and a master’s degree in international relations from the University of South Florida in Tampa, Fla.

Her more recent publications include the volume “Equity and Social Inclusion: Overcoming Inequalities Towards More Inclusive Societies” in 2016; and “Women, Politics and Democracy in Latin America” in 2017 from the “Crossing Boundaries of Gender and Politics in the Global South” series. Following her tenure of more than a decade as the OAS’ political-electoral secretariat of the OAS, in 2015, Muñoz-Pogossian assumed the leadership of working on social inclusion issues at the OAS General Secretariat.

She recently spoke with the Washington Blade in D.C. about the progress made and the main challenges regarding the equity agenda in the Americas.

BLADE: What is equity? What are the key issues in the equity agenda in the Americas?

Muñoz-Pogossian: All human beings, from the time we were kids, understand how situations of inequity feel; those situations in which due to gender, race, age, migration status, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, a person cannot enjoy their rights and cannot have access to all goods and services in a society. We are all equal before the law. That is a basic obligation of democratic governments. But equity is something else. Equity makes evident the differences amongst all individuals, of their life trajectories that often impede equal access to opportunities. It seeks to generate conditions to level the playing field so that all can effectively have access to education, health, housing, social protection, jobs, to the benefits of economic growth and development throughout their life cycle, and ultimately, to all their human rights. Because the Americas continues to be the most unequal region in the world, the General Secretariat of the OAS has decided to prioritize its efforts to promote more equity in the region, and to contribute to ensuring more rights for more people.

Apart from eradicating poverty and extreme poverty, the regional equity agenda must be focused on the social inclusion of populations in situations of vulnerability. The emphasis should be placed on promoting and ensuring the enjoyment of the rights of children and youth, people of African descent and indigenous peoples, LGTBI people, people with disabilities, and to continue moving forward with the gender equity agenda. This is where we have had the most progress, but where there is still much to be done.

This work needs to focus, on one hand, on generating conditions of real democracy where these populations can, on a comparable basis as the rest of the members of society, enjoy their civil and political rights, namely, to elect and be elected, to have influence in decision-making processes, and to have incidence in the political agenda. On the other hand, the equity regional agenda must refine the series of public policies that have been implemented so far to ensure a more equal distribution of the benefits of economic growth and development. But we must also move one step further regarding economic and social rights. More political will is needed to ensure the full socio-productive inclusion of these populations, and to ensure a life free of discrimination for all. This, in the end, has everything to do with their capacity to exercise their civil and political rights. Which person who has to provide for his or her basic needs regarding food, housing or health can effectively enter the political arena and compete for public office? The discussion regarding what to prioritize is a national one. The fact is, however, that the continued existence of socioeconomic inequities that are replicated in the power asymmetries in the political sphere have a negative impact for the stability of our democracies, and on the levels of citizens’ trust in political institutions. This is something that should concern us all.

BLADE: Which progress should we celebrate? Which challenges should we prioritize?

Muñoz-Pogossian: One of the most important achievements in the last few years has been to have moved the scale in favor of the gender equity agenda. Women’s right to vote is today the norm in all countries of the Americas, and legal frameworks guarantee their right to be elected. According to data from ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), the average number of national female legislators went up from 9 to 25 percent between 1990-2015. Today practically all countries of the region have implemented quota or parity reforms, and some have even legislated in favor of targeted political financing for female candidacies. This has been manifested in greater representation of women in national legislatures, in ministerial cabinets, and although in 2018 we will only have one woman directing her country’s future in Trinidad and Tobago, we have had a number of women as heads of state in a few Latin American countries.


The challenge that we must prioritize is actually a historic debt that we have as a region. We have about 200 million Afro-descendants and 50 million indigenous people in the region. These populations are generally in the most vulnerable situations: 90 percent of these populations in the countries of the region live in poverty or extreme poverty, and in many cases, do not enjoy universal access to health, education, housing and potable water. This perpetuates a situation of political underrepresentation. At the same time, this translates into the formulation of public policies that do not consider the ethnic specificities of these populations, which again affects the representativeness of the decisions that emerge from the political system, and people’s trust in democracy.

BLADE: What is the OAS doing to promote the equity agenda in the region?

Muñoz-Pogossian: At the OAS Secretariat for Access to Rights and Equity for its Department of Social Inclusion, we strive to give our support to member states in their efforts to address inequality in all its forms using an integral, inclusive and sustainable approach. We base our work in the commitments established in the OAS Charter, the Social Charter of the Americas, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the Protocol of San Salvador, and the numerous inter-American juridical instruments on human rights. The OAS work on the equity agenda is organized along three key strategic lines:

1. Supporting intersectoral dialogue processes at the highest level to capitalize national capacities, both human and institutional, as well as to promote the exchange of lessons and solutions that contribute to the full exercise of all human rights by the people of the Americas.

2. Promoting and strengthening efficient cooperation strategies and the generation of alliances amongst countries of the region to promote social inclusion and the exercise of economic, social, and cultural rights, to contribute to the eradication of poverty and extreme poverty in particular, and to revert situations of inequity and discrimination.

3.Accompanying countries of the region to fulfill obligations contained in the inter-American normative frameworks regarding development, social inclusion and no discrimination of groups in vulnerable situations, to ensure the effective protection of their human rights.

We at the OAS understand equity as the goal, and social inclusion as the process to achieve it. Promoting more rights for more people is our strategy to tip the scales in favor of equity in the region.

At the end of the conversation with Muñoz-Pogossian, it is clear that, although there is much to do, there has been important progress made in our region to ensure more social and political equity. It is also clear that we have the tools to do it. Via legislation, administrative measures and public policies with a rights-based perspective, we can reverse situations of inequity. The work is monumental, urgent and difficult because we are dealing with people who are in highly vulnerable situations. The work, however, is worth it because it brings us closer to having better democracies and better societies.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Trump’s return threatens Uganda’s gender equality and trans community

US has played pivotal role in supporting LGBTQ rights around the world

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Photo via White House/X)

The last few weeks have seen a dramatic shift in the global landscape ever since Donald Trump returned to the presidency of the United States in January 2025. In just his first few weeks in office, he has rolled out a flurry of executive orders that radically reshape trans rights — most recently banning trans women and girls from participating in women’s sports at federally funded schools. This move, a focal point of his 2024 campaign, accompanies another sweeping directive redefining sex as strictly male or female at birth, effectively denying the legal reality of transgender and nonbinary identities.

This represents a stark departure from recent U.S. policy, which had recognized gender identity as a protected category under federal law, following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). Rolling back those precedents and restricting transgender people’s rights across education, housing, healthcare, federal employment, and more, means that the new administration has signaled that it is willing to reverse hard-fought civil rights gains in the name of “restoring biological truth.”

Historically, the United States has played a pivotal role in supporting LGBTQ+ rights worldwide. Over the past decades, U.S. foreign policy, funding initiatives, and diplomatic interventions have often helped protect marginalized groups abroad from violence, discrimination, and stigma. Ugandan civil society organizations, especially those advocating for LGBTQ+ communities, have relied on U.S. backing — both in principle and in practice — by receiving grants, legal support, or endorsements from U.S. diplomatic missions. This assistance has been critical in a country where key population communities, particularly transgender individuals, face rampant societal backlash. Moreover, the recent passage of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA) has entrenched an increasingly restrictive and repressive legal framework, fueling widespread societal stigma and discrimination that has intensified at home and is echoed in other parts of the continent.

In Uganda, “transgender” itself is not legally recognized; most identity documents still list only male or female, without mechanisms to update the markers for those who have transitioned or identify outside binary classifications. This makes everyday life a constant struggle, with people facing suspicion or ridicule whenever their physical appearance doesn’t match the gender on their ID.

For transgender Ugandans, accessing healthcare is fraught with challenges. While recent years have seen small pockets of progress — such as a Key Populations desk led by the Ministry of Health and the Uganda AIDS Commission in partnership with various development agencies, as well as a few clinics offering trans-friendly services and modest recognition of transgender-specific needs — these efforts remain precarious and at risk of faltering.

One reason is the chilling effect that new U.S. executive orders may have on international donor funding. If federal agencies are mandated to halt the “promotion” or “support” of what the Trump administration terms “gender ideology,” projects focusing on transgender health, counseling, or HIV prevention may find themselves unable to secure necessary funds. 

Following a sudden directive from PEPFAR, all implementing partners must suspend their activities for 90 days while determining how to proceed under the new executive orders. This abrupt halt severely disrupts Tranz Network Uganda (TNU)’s community-led HIV prevention and treatment programs — funded for essential interventions such as PrEP, ART initiation, HIV testing, health education, and the distribution of condoms and lubricants in trans community hotspots. As a direct result, 52 trans persons on ART now face treatment interruptions, two hundred will lose access to critical prevention kits and lubricants, and health talks planned for one hundred community members are on hold. Beyond these immediate setbacks, the directive endangers broader HIV response gains and disproportionately impacts a population already at high risk and facing systematic marginalization.

For a population that already struggles to access basic care, any interruption or shortfall in medical supplies or specialized training will have dire consequences. Uganda’s trans community also depends on the moral and political support once offered by international partners. If the U.S. signals it no longer treats trans rights as human rights, local leaders who are already hostile to trans people could become more emboldened to adopt harsher measures. That could mean further restrictions on transgender-friendly healthcare, more aggressive policing, and the closure of community centers.

The precarious situation is compounded by existing human rights violations targeting sexual and gender minorities such as the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Transgender Ugandans often face physical violence, arbitrary arrests, and public outing, leading to loss of jobs, denial of housing, and ostracization from families. 

In the past, when local advocates or victims have sought help from foreign embassies or humanitarian agencies, they often turned to offices backed by U.S. funding or support. Now, in the wake of Trump’s orders, a tense atmosphere has arisen — again. Civil society groups are questioning whether they should tailor their programs more conservatively to avoid losing grants. Community leaders warn that a chain reaction could follow: When the U.S. steps away from acknowledging gender identity, local officials who are unsympathetic to transgender individuals see a green light to intensify crackdown efforts.

We must urge the U.S. government to reconsider these orders. At stake are the lives and well-being of people whose dignity and identity are summarily dismissed by a return to rigid definitions of sex and gender. Failing to uphold transgender rights and cutting off resources to supportive programs can worsen Uganda’s strained public health system — particularly for those seeking HIV and mental health services. 

The United States should revisit its role as a leader in upholding the principles of equality and nondiscrimination, principles that once were hallmarks of its global engagement. Local communities and advocacy groups also need continued support and engagement from both governmental and non-governmental U.S. entities, which can influence policy through targeted funding, diplomacy, and public statements affirming that trans rights are human rights.

Moving forward, the administration in Washington should consider preserving or at least carving out exemptions for essential health, legal, and community-building services. If fully reversing these executive orders is politically difficult, then agencies should consult with experts, activists, and members of the transgender community themselves to mitigate harm and ensure that humanitarian needs are not overshadowed by ideological directives. 

Uganda is also party to various regional and international human rights treaties that obligate it to uphold non-discrimination. In August 2023, the Ministry of Health released a press statement mandating that health services be accessible to all without discrimination — a pledge that stands in stark contrast to the current environment following the passage of the AHA. Government officials would do well to honor these commitments by reassuring the local transgender population that essential healthcare remains accessible, and by addressing the urgent need for legal identity mechanisms. Ultimately, dismantling the fragile network of trans-focused support not only imperils those on the margins but also undermines global progress toward fundamental human rights, equality, and compassion — values that should know no borders.

Williams Apako is the executive officer of the Tranz Network Uganda and a board member of the Global Fund’s Uganda Country Coordinating Mechanism.

Continue Reading

Commentary

Reflecting on interactions with President Jimmy Carter

An LGBTQ ally and devout Christian who adored his wife of 77 years

Published

on

President Jimmy Carter (Official White House photo public domain)

It’s September 1998, and I’m at lunch with several other journalists and a grandmother. As I sip my Coke, I hear a friendly male voice. You can tell he’s smiling. “Time to shake hands now,” he says.

We’re at the Carter Center in Atlanta for a few days. The other reporters and I have received Rosalynn Carter Fellowships for Mental Health Journalism. The grandma sitting with us is former first lady Rosalynn Carter, and the man with the warm smile is former President Jimmy Carter. “As soon as we get on a plane,” Mrs. Carter says, “Jimmy walks down the aisles and shakes hands with everybody. He knows they want to say hi to him.”

Jimmy Carter died Dec. 29 in hospice care in Georgia. President Biden declared Thursday a National Day of Mourning and Carter’s funeral will take place at Washington National Cathedral that day. After the funeral, Carter and his family will return to Plains, Ga. to Maranatha Baptist Church for a private funeral and then to Carter’s private residence for interment.

Twenty-five years ago, we journos were at the Carter Center to meet with experts in mental health so we could report accurately on the issue.  

The fellowship program was founded in 1996 by Rosalynn Carter. Mrs. Carter, who died in 2023 at age 96, was no mere figurehead. She knew every detail about our fellowship projects. Heaven help us, if she’d caught us asleep at the switch.

It takes nothing away from Mrs. Carter to note how essential her personal and professional partnership with her husband Jimmy Carter was to her and her work.

Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter were married in 1946. The first thing that hit you when you saw them together was how deeply they loved each other. There was nothing sappy about how they were with each other.

One morning, President Carter ambled into the conference room before our session on stigma and mental health was about to begin. Kenneth W. Starr had just delivered his report on (then) President Bill Clinton’s alleged abuses and affair with Monica Lewinsky. Naturally, we, the reporters in the room, asked Jimmy Carter how he felt about Bill Clinton. We were committed to mental health journalism. But, a former president was there – standing by the wall.

President Carter didn’t seem to want to hold back. He said he didn’t think that highly of Bill Clinton. But, before he could go on to say more, Mrs. Carter gave him a look. The look you give your spouse after decades of loving togetherness. Especially, if you’re a political couple and your mate’s being grilled by scribes eager to make news. “I know,” Jimmy Carter said, smiling, to Rosalynn Carter, his most ardent supporter and astute critic, “I’m talking too much, darlin’. I’m leaving now.”

You could tell how proud President Carter was of Mrs. Carter. At lunch or dinner, you’d see him nodding approvingly at her when she spoke of her work. You could see it in how he teased her. “Rosalynn talks about mental health all the time,” Jimmy Carter said, with a laugh, one night, as he saw Mrs. Carter chatting with us about how the media reported on mental health.

What I most recall about Jimmy Carter is his generosity of spirit. “I beat Jerry Ford,” President Carter said, “but Rosalyn and I are good friends with the Fords now.”

He wasn’t using the word “friends” in the way politicos often do. The Carters and the Fords were friends who worked together on mental health and other issues.

I hadn’t yet come out as a lesbian when I was at the Carter Center. But I didn’t feel I had to remain closeted or silent about my (then) partner. Carter was, what today likely would be an oxymoron: a born-again Christian, who welcomed everyone.

The Carter Center, which the Carters founded after his presidency, is like a theme park, where, instead of standing in line for attractions, people work to resolve conflicts and eradicate diseases.

Thank you, President Carter for your work, humanity and being an LGBTQ ally. R.I.P., Jimmy Carter.


Kathi Wolfe, a writer and poet, was a regular contributor to the Blade. She wrote this tribute just before she passed away in June 2024.

Continue Reading

Commentary

What does Trudeau’s resignation mean for the queer community?

Be careful what you wish for

Published

on

Justin Trudeau marches at Toronto Pride in 2015, months before being elected prime minister. (Photo courtesy of Rob Salerno)

LGBTQ Global originally published this commentary. The Washington Blade is republishing it with permission.

On Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was stepping down as leader of the Liberal Party, and thus as prime minister as soon as the party chooses his replacement. There’s a lot to unpack about how we got here and what happens next, but it’s important to note exactly how transformative Justin Trudeau was on LGBTQ rights in Canada.

When Trudeau came to power in 2015, he was following nearly 10 years of rule under the Stephen Harper Conservatives. Harper’s Conservative Party was new force in Canadian politics, merging the old-school business-minded Progressive Conservative Party with the more radical and frequently explicitly bigoted Canadian Alliance/Reform Party. Harper was able to take advantage of Canada’s badly designed electoral system and fractured political left to win three elections with 36, 37, and 39 percent of the vote. Unbowed by the lack of majority electoral mandate, the Conservatives relished in forcing through their agenda without seeking support from other parties.

Harper immediately called a vote on repealing same-sex marriage, which had become national law only a year prior (the vote failed, which Harper’s defenders like to argue was the plan all along.) He immediately slashed funding to civil rights defenders who had won a string of court victories for LGBTQ people. Arts, culture, and tourism boards were warned they’d come under scrutiny if they funded queer groups and programs. The Conservatives blocked justice reforms like equalizing the age of consent and protecting transgender people in law.

After a decade of this shit, LGBTQ Canadians and progressives were exhausted and demoralized.

Trudeau swept into office in 2015 and set about immediately changing the tone. That first year was a lot of photo ops and press statements and Cabinet appointments designed to ensure that every marginalized community felt that they were represented in the new government. Trudeau even became the first prime minister to march in a Pride parade — something he did over and over in multiple cities.

Conservatives derisively called it all “virtue signaling” or and relentlessly told a certain segment of the electorate that they should be offended by it all.

But for the most part, the Trudeau government delivered, especially for LGBTQ people.

Two key reforms came about in its first term: An overhaul of the Criminal Code that removed a number of laws that were still used to target queer people, including a sodomy law that included a higher age of consent and a ban on gay sex if it involved more than two people. Also removed were several obscenity and bawdy house provisions that were used to harass queer communities.

The other was the trans rights bill, C-16, which included explicit protections for trans people in federal human rights law and included them as a protected class in the hate crime and hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code. It’s genuinely astounding in retrospect how much impact this bill had given how little it actually changed. Canadian courts had already ruled that trans people were generally protected under sex discrimination laws, and in any event, the federal human rights code doesn’t really cover much in Canada. The far more important provincial human rights codes had mostly been updated to include “gender identity” years before the federal code anyway.

But the passage of C-16 was also the launching pad for one of Canada’s most notorious far-right cranks, Jordan Peterson. An obviously disturbed and disgraced former university professor, Peterson gained a global following of anti-trans weirdos and incels by spreading lies about C-16. The community that formed around Peterson is now a core constituency of the Conservative Party under opposition leader Pierre Poilievre. Indeed, Peterson’s interview of Poilievre last week on YouTube was treated as some kind of Yalta Conference for cringey weirdos — and may be why Elon Musk took a sudden interest in Poilievre this week.

But that wasn’t all Trudeau delivered for the queer community.

The Trudeau government banned conversion therapy. It restored and expanded funding to civil rights groups, queer organizations, and the arts. It drafted and implemented a strategy to promote 2SLGBTQIA+ rights and inclusion across government (yeah, that the government’s official acronym.) It issued an historic apology, expungement, and compensation scheme for people who’d been convicted or fired from the public service under old anti-gay laws. It added an “X” gender option for federal ID (passports). It ended the ban on gay/bi blood, tissue, and semen donors.

Trudeau also guided Canada through an unprecedented series of global and national crises, including the COVID pandemic, the first Trump presidency, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an insurgency against the government (fully supported by the Conservatives), and a national reckoning with Canada’s shameful treatment of its Indigenous people.

But he was unable or unwilling to reckon with a series of major problems that have only been exacerbated by those crises: A soaring cost of living, a crumbling health care system, and a growing sense that nothing seems to “work” in Canada — from a post office that refuses to deliver packages, to parks that refuse to unlock their bathrooms, to criminals that go free because packed courts can’t hear their trials in time, to infrastructure and defense projects that drag on years beyond schedule and billions of dollars over budget.

The fact that most of these problems are under the jurisdiction of provinces that are almost entirely being mismanaged by Conservatives — sorry, the feds have to wear Canada Post — hasn’t blunted the people’s decision that Trudeau is to blame for every ill in Canada. Heck, that’s basically the Conservative slogan these days.

Trudeau probably should have stepped down a few months ago, to give the party a chance to choose a successor in an orderly fashion. Instead, he’s made himself a lame duck days before Trump takes office, threatening to annex Canada (and Greenland and Panama) through economic power, whatever the hell he means by any of that. The Liberal Party will soon announce rules for how a nationwide vote on the new leader will be held, and candidates are already jockeying into place. A new leader will have to be chosen by March 25, when parliament is recalled and the opposition is likely to force an early election, likely in mid-May.

According to current polls, the Liberal Party is cooked, and the Conservatives are poised to pull a near-sweep of parliament. Of course, it’s also possible that a leadership contest brings a fresh appealing face to the Liberals, and they’re able to recover some position ahead of the vote, whenever it is. Or Canadians will become concerned with the Conservative Party’s growing ties to Trump Republicans.

Poilievre, who cut his teeth in the Harper government as its most unscrupulous attack dog, is trying to position himself as the reasonable person who can unite and fix a fractured Canada. I have my doubts, given his entire public history. He’s also been notably palling around the worst anti-LGBTQ bigots in Canada and making vaguely threatening statements about banning trans women from bathrooms.

As Canadians get ready to head to the polls, it’s worth remembering what Conservatives do when they’re in power.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular