The intersectionality of the LGBQT+ and houseless experience is broad in scope, as LGBQT+ individuals are a vastly over represented group among our houseless peoples (like other marginalized groups.) Both factors in combination will affect every area of an individual's life: how they earn money, where they take shelter, who they find as friends, what their daily routine is, and when they have time to pursue opportunity (if at all). For those without direct experience in these significant lifestyle aspects, understanding the pragmatic implications of such intersectionality is not easy or intuitive.
If we first challenge our sneaky preconceptions about houselessness, then the data concerning LGBQT+ houselessness (including youths) starts to make more sense, and a more discernible ‘lifestyle narrative’ emerges from the studies. Predictably, the public tends to associate houseless populations with the most visible signs: active and abandoned campsites, trash piles, burnpiles, shopping carts, human waste. cans, theft, drug paraphernalia etc. Yet while these things can surely be correlated with drug abuse, homelessness/houselessness is a much broader experience: for every person you see pushing a shopping cart, there are many more in the supra-group known as ‘invisible homeless.’ These are people and families who are living in impermanent situations: on the couches of relatives, or in their basements, camping in backyards, living in RVs or motels, or quietly on the street. Individuals from this group are often the most vulnerable, and so make every effort to avoid notice.
LGBQT+ individuals will often fall into this category: houseless, but not so that anyone would notice. THE RESEARCH indicates that many survive by forming informal networks of work and companionship- sharing opportunities for material and psychological survival. There are certainly dangers that come with living ‘off the grid’, and predators may use this network to find potential victims, however it is important to remember that neither of these hazards are explicitly related to sexual orientation: all individuals using these informal networks must navigate such risks.
This observation is important to deciphering the layers of intersectionality: though many houseless individuals identify themselves as LGBQT+, there is nothing about one’s sexual orientation which can be implicitly linked homelessness (unlike, say, head trauma and PTSD, which create functional challenges for participation in mainstream society.) Instead, it is the (over)reaction of society, of friends and family, which forces young LGBQT+ people to flee into the streets. The connection between LGBQT+ and houselessness is incidental, and artifact of racist/homophobic societal norms, rather than a literal causal connection. This is important to understand, when trying to grasp the lifestyle experience of LGBQT+ youth on the streets: they are living simultaneously in two worlds, which are connected (incidentally), but not the same. These two factors will certainly involve compounded risk, and each makes surviving the other more difficult.
However, we can find ways to provide support from somewhat of a remove, where we don’t necessarily need the same expertise as a social worker or psychologist. With simple material support, we can prevent young people from being forced into desperate decisions. How do we distribution this material?
An answer will be forthcoming, but in general we know that, in order to be accessible by by homeless-LGBTQ, and others, the mechanism of distribution will need to be convenient, ubiquitous over the area off interest, non-discriminatory, and non-binding (non-contractual, one-off, ‘pay as you go’.)
With a nuanced appreciation for the differences between lifestyle factors, and how they affect an individual, we can find ways to help a population of interest (in this case youth-LGBQT+ experiencing houselessness) by then looking at commonalities, or ‘meeting points,’ where both factors co-mingle. We might ask, what are the commonalities of experience and lifestyle between LGBQT+ and houseless populations? The question might seem a bit absurd, but the answer is pragmatic: historically, both groups have often depended on informal ‘gray markets’ to meet their living needs.
During the era of anti-gay laws in New York, individuals wanting to make safe space (bar, club etc) for LGBQT+ peoples had to use less-than-legitimate rentals/leases from landlords willing to turn a blind eye (for an exorbitant cost.) Similarly, while houseless struggle to find a safe space merely to sleep, cities invest in ‘hostile designs’ which make underused public spaces inhospitable with spikes or rocks. As a result, the houseless are forced into increasingly smaller areas, which become controlled by gangs who extort ‘rent’. In both cases, these groups are forced to interface with illegal activities in order to meet their various hierarchy of needs (in particular, community/support/love in the former case, and shelter/safety in the latter.)
Houseless individuals will typically lack the resources to take advantage of opportunities which emerge, while LGBQT+ are more actively discriminated against, however the practical consequence in both cases is that a person must rely on informal social and economic networks. If we understand that both groups are depending on these same networks, it is easier to know where/how to allocate resources.
Whether houseless, or LGBQT+, or both, the ability to ‘earn your own way’ is key to positive self regard (in most cultures.) People, particularly those who struggle to work with-in the system, absolutely want and need a sense of autonomy and empowerment- the ability to live, and even thrive, on their own terms. There is a deeper human dilemma here: there have always been, and always will be, those people who ‘don’t fit’ into the conventional lifestyle modes (for internal or external reasons; mental illness or discrimination etc.) In our mechanized society, there is a tendency to look at these situations with the linear ‘problem->solution’ paradigm of an engineer, where we try to ‘fix’ the person as we would a broken component. With-in this frame, there is an implicit assumption of the righteousness or validity of the dominant culture. Erudite readers will know well the dangers of such unquestioned assumptions.
The US was built by successions of ‘outsiders’: the working classes on colonist ships were often represented then dregs and outcasts of society. When east-coast settlements were established, after the pathogenic genocide of indigenous people, it was the outcasts and rebels and individualists who chose to walk west, away from civilization as they understood it (with all its cruelties and hierarchies.) These ‘homeless’ often found better company with surviving inland natives, who lived with greater freedoms (sexual and otherwise) than the western immigrants. These survivalists built homesteads, which served as trade depots and resupply points for other settlers- a foothold which, ironically, allowed the gradual expansion of the civilization they were attempting to escape.
America has profound traditions of nomadism, and ‘off the grid’ living, however the frontier is no more. Many of the houseless/homeless we see today would be far more successful ‘roughing it’ in wilderness country, however, all the land is spoken for (owned/private), and the forests are denuded of game to hunt. And so, ever adaptable, they are ‘urban survivalists.’
Rather than trying to explicitly ‘solve’ or ‘eliminate’ these individuals, it would be more humane (and more economic) to make sure the sufficient resources were always being channeled to the margins of society- into the ‘grey markets.’ Then those that wish to leave the margins may have more economic/social mobility, and those who are committed to their survivalist heritage will not be forced into desperation.
With-in the various strata of houseless society, one may notice a portion who seem to always be hauling a load of cans. If you are extra-empathic, or have experience in canning yourself, you may pick up on the quiet dignity with which they go about their work. Collecting cans is not ubiquitous among houseless, nor particularly easy (especially for seniors.) There are other, less legitimate ways to score money, with less work, but the can collectors have chosen a path of sweat and sore feet; doing the rounds, from neighborhood to neighborhood, street corner to back alley, quietly and dutifully performing a consecrated public ritual of performance recycling.
The programs which allow individuals to turn scavenged and reclaimed goods into income are a fantastic example of a wealth distribution mechanism that is convenient (easy to use), ubiquitous (exchange sites everywhere), non-discriminatory (machines perform the exchange) and non-binding (individuals are not burdened social/economic status of ‘employed’ with all its paperwork.)
We can help LGBQT+ youth directly by strengthening/expanding these programs: after being exiled from their family unit, finding a way to reintegrate with another family takes time, but in the interim they desperately need means to independently support themselves.
We are only limited by our creativity, once we understand what is possible through incentivising aggregate group processes: currently you will find no loose cans nor glasses on the streets of portland- rarely, at least, if at all. We have incentivised their collection. What else might be encouraged with income exchange?
