Life on the Margins: Survey Results of the Experiences of LGBTI People in Southeastern Europe September 2018 Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. 1 Key findings ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Variations across countries ............................................................................................................. 2 Variations across subgroups ........................................................................................................... 3 Way forward ................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Sample and survey demographics............................................................................................ 8 1.2 Legal Context........................................................................................................................... 10 2. Daily Life for LGBTI People in Southeastern Europe ..................................................................... 13 2.1 Openness about sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics ...................... 13 2.2 Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Rights awareness .................................................................................................................... 20 2.4 LGBTI movements, campaigns, and supporting organizations ............................................... 24 3. Perception of Public Attitudes Toward LGBTI People ................................................................... 28 3.1 Attitudes toward LGBTI people and their visibility ................................................................. 28 3.2 LGBTI Perception of Acceptance Index ................................................................................... 31 4. Discrimination Against and Harassment of LGBTI People ............................................................ 34 4.1 Perceptions of discrimination ................................................................................................. 35 4.2 Personal experiences of discrimination .................................................................................. 37 4.3 Discrimination in the workplace ............................................................................................. 41 4.4 Discrimination in the education system ................................................................................. 45 4.5 Discrimination in the health care system ............................................................................... 48 4.6 Reporting discrimination to authorities .................................................................................. 53 4.7 Harassment ............................................................................................................................. 57 5. Violence Against LGBTI People ..................................................................................................... 66 5.1 Experiences of violence........................................................................................................... 66 5.2 Reporting violence to authorities ........................................................................................... 73 6. Improving the Situation for LGBTI People .................................................................................... 79 6.1 Current measures to improve LGBTI lives............................................................................... 79 6.2 What would improve the lives of LGBTI people?.................................................................... 82 7. Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................... 87 7.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 87 7.2 Recommendations and next steps .......................................................................................... 87 Annex 1. Method and Weighting ...................................................................................................... 90 Annex 2. List of CSO Survey Partner Organizations .......................................................................... 93 Annex 3: Demographics .................................................................................................................... 94 Annex 4: Croatia and Slovenia: A Longitudinal Analysis ................................................................. 108 Annex 5: Questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 111 Acknowledgments This report is the product of more than two years of labor on the part of a team of many people and organizations. Most of all, we would like to acknowledge the LGBTI people of the Western Balkans, many of whom who shared insights into their lives as part of this work. We know this is not always easy and we hope that we have done justice to your experience. ERA – LGBTI Equal Rights Association for the Western Balkans and Turkey was central to the realization of this report, in particular, Amarildo Fecanji and Dragana Todorović and their network of partners throughout the region, who helped shape the questions and encouraged people to respond. The survey was implemented, and the results analyzed thanks to the tireless commitment of the team at IPSOS Strategic Marketing, led by Milena Lazic, Svetlana Logar, Vojislav Mihailovic, and Marko Uljarevic. The team appreciates the guidance and connections provided by the Williams Institute, especially Andrew Park and Andrew Flores. The team would also like to thank the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) for its groundbreaking 2012 survey, on which this research was directly built, as well as its advice on implementing the project. At the World Bank, the team was led by Georgia Harley and Nicholas Menzies (Task Team Leaders), with the unwavering support of Dominik Kohler (Project Coordinator). The team additionally drew on the expertise of Kristen Himelein Kastelic, Marko Karadzic, and Runyararo Gladys Senderayi, and the report benefited from the excellent editorial insights of Patricia Carley. Clifton Cortez, Eva Klove, Antonio Mihajlov, Valerie Morrica, Merita Poni, Kristian Randjelovic, Koen Slootmaeckers, Marija Vuletic, and Joao Pedro Wagner De Azevedo provided excellent comments as peer reviewers. The close collaboration between the World Bank’s Governance Global Practice and the Country Management Unit for the Western Balkans was critical to the success of this work. In particular, the team is grateful to Ellen Goldstein, former Country Director for the Western Balkans, and Adrian Fozzard, former Practice Manager for Europe and Central Asia in the Governance Global Practice, who recognized this work early on and took an informed risk in supporting the team to initiate the research. On this foundation and throughout implementation, Linda Van Gelder, Country Director for the Western Balkans, Goran Tinjic, Senior Operations Officer, and Roby Senderowitsch, Practice Manager, strengthened support and supervision, for which the team is deeply grateful. All errors are the team’s alone, and the views expressed herein do not represent the position of the World Bank or its Executive Directors. Funding for this work was generously provided by the Nordic Trust Fund, a knowledge and learning platform promoting human rights-based approaches to development. The authors can be contacted at dkohler@worldbank.org. Glossary of Terms This glossary of terms and definitions is meant to provide a common basis for understanding, and to provide terminology to describe concepts related to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics For some individuals, sex, gender, and sexuality are not categorical but a spectrum. These are common terms and definitions as captured in the English language. It is important to note that sexual orientation and gender identity terms of identification vary across cultures and languages. This list is therefore by no means complete or exhaustive. Acronyms SOGI Sexual orientation and gender identity LGBTI Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people SGM Sexual and Gender Minorities Sex Sex The classification of a person as female, male or intersex. Infants are usually assigned a sex at birth based on the appearance of their external anatomy. A person’s sex is a combination of bodily characteristics, including their chromosomes (typically XY chromosome= male, XX chromosome= female), their reproductive organs and their secondary sex characteristics. Sex Assigned at The sex classification of people at birth. This is usually assigned by a medical Birth practitioner after a brief review of a newborn’s genitalia. Sex Each person’s physical features relating to sex, including genitalia and other Characteristics sexual and reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, and secondary physical features emerging from puberty. Intersex An umbrella term that refers to people who have one or more of a range of variations in physical sex characteristics that fall outside of traditional conceptions of male or female bodies. Some intersex characteristics are identified at birth, while other people may not discover they have intersex traits until puberty or later in life. Note that intersex is not synonymous with transgender. Gender Identity Gender Gender refers to social, behavioral, and cultural attributes, expectations and norms associated with being male or female. There is increasing consensus that gender goes beyond the binary concept of men and women. Gender Identity Each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender (e.g. of being a man, a woman, in-between, neither or something else), “which may or may not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth or the gender attributed to them by society. It includes the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and expressions of gender, including dress, speech, and mannerisms. Note that this sense of self is separate from sex assigned at birth and is not related to sexual orientation. Gender identity is internal; it is not necessarily visible to others. Gender The way we show our gender to the world around us, through things such as Expression clothing, hairstyles, and mannerisms, to name a few. Masculinity/ Possession of the socially, historically, and politically constructed qualities Femininity associated with men and women, or maleness and femaleness, in a society at a particular time. The definitions change over time and are different from place to place. Although they seem to be gender-specific, women perform and produce the meaning and practices of the masculine, and men perform and produce that of the feminine as well. Cisgender Cis or cisgender are used for people whose gender identity is in alignment with the sex assigned to them at birth. (Cis meaning “in alignment with” or “on the same side”). Transgender Refers to a person whose sex assigned at birth does not match their gender identity. The term “trans” is often used as shorthand. Trans man A person whose sex assigned at birth was female, but who identifies as male. Trans woman A person whose sex assigned at birth was male, but who identifies as female. Transphobia The irrational fear of those who are gender variant, and/or the inability to deal with gender ambiguity. It also describes discriminatory treatment of individuals who do not conform in presentation and/or identity to conventional conceptions of gender and/or those who do not identify with or express their assigned sex. Sexual Orientation Sexual Each person’s enduring capacity for profound romantic, emotional and/or Orientation physical feelings for, or attraction to, person(s) of a particular sex or gender. It encompasses hetero-, homo- and bi-sexuality and a wide range of other expressions of sexual orientation. Queer An umbrella term that includes lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people, intersex people, and others. For decades ‘queer’ was used solely as a slur for gays and lesbians but was reclaimed by activists as a term of self- identification. Sexual and Persons whose sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or Gender Minorities gender expression differ from those of the majority of the surrounding society. Lesbian A woman who predominantly has the capacity for romantic, emotional and/or physical attraction to other women. Gay A man who predominantly has the capacity for romantic, emotional and/or physical attraction to other men. The term is sometimes used to also describe women who are attracted to other women. Heterosexual People who are attracted to individuals of a different sex and/or gender identity from their own (also referred to as “straight”). Bisexual People who have the capacity for romantic, emotional and/or physical attraction to person(s) of the same sex or gender, as well as to person(s) of a different sex or gender.” Homophobia The fear, hatred or intolerance of homosexual people as a social group or as individuals. It also describes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Biphobia The fear, hatred or intolerance of bisexuality and bisexual people as a social group or as individuals. Executive Summary This survey was conducted to better understand the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people in seven countries in Southeastern Europe: five in the Western Balkans - Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia, and Montenegro; as well as two European Union (EU) member states, Croatia and Slovenia. The research adopted and adapted a 2012 survey of LGBT people carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 27 EU countries plus Croatia (which joined the EU in 2013) (the “FRA survey”). The FRA survey set a benchmark for understanding the lives of LGBT people. In addition to the FRA survey, this current survey also gathered specific information on the lives of intersex people. The collective experiences of LGBTI people in the countries surveyed paint a distressing picture of the harmful effects of discrimination, harassment, exclusion, and violence. The findings confirm that generally, most LGBTI people hide their identities for fear of discrimination or worse and have legitimate concerns about their safety, especially in public spaces, but also in their own homes. The survey indicates that the majority of LGBTI people are not involved in LGBTI movements and have limited knowledge of their rights and how to exercise them. Many are on the receiving end of offensive jokes, insults, abusive language, and expressions of hatred. Discrimination in the workplace and in the health care and education systems remains common, and incidents of exclusion and harassment are widespread. Despite the frequent discrimination, harassment, and violence that LGBTI people face, specific incidents are seldom reported. In the few instances in which reports are made, there is usually inaction or inadequate action to address the situation. Unsurprisingly, many LGBTI people are of the view that very few beneficial measures are being taken to improve their lives and that more needs to be done. For example, the public and LGBTI people themselves need to become more aware of LGBTI rights, and national human rights authorities should be strengthened to effectively address and protect those rights. Many respondents felt that the increased visibility of LGBTI people through, for example, more vocal support from public figures would help promote respect for their rights. Even though five years have passed since the FRA survey, the situation for LGBTI people in the Western Balkan countries is much worse than the experience of their peers in the EU, across nearly all dimensions. This is particularly concerning, as the FRA survey uncovered disturbing findings of discrimination and violence against LGBT people. The poor situation for LGBTI people in Southeastern Europe exists even with positive advancements in legislation. The FRA survey contributed to discussions about measures that EU member states should take to improve the lives of LGBT people. It is hoped that the findings of the current survey can do the same, as well as inform accession discussions for those five Western Balkan states not yet part of the EU. This is the largest survey of LGBTI people ever carried out in Southeastern Europe. A total of 2,296 people responded. In a context of widespread stigma, the survey was conducted online to allow the widest number of people to participate privately and confidentially.1 Since respondents had to “opt in” to the survey, the data is from self-selected participants and is therefore not a random sample of LGBTI people in the participating countries. It is difficult to obtain a representative sample of LGBTI people, so online surveys are considered the most appropriate method for surveying sexual and gender minorities.2 The survey sampling method and recruitment is consistent with previous studies of these populations, including the FRA survey.3 The sample was weighted to population targets 1 See Annex 1 for more details on the method, including safety measures. 2 Koch, N. S., and Emery J. A. “The Internet and Opinion Measurement: Surveying Marginalized Populations.” Social Science Quarterly 82, no. 1 (2001): 131-1388; Rollins, J., and Hirch, H. N. “Sexual Identities and Political Engagement: A Queer Survey.” Social Politics 10, no. 3 (2003): 290-313; and Swank E., and Frahs, B. “Predicting Electoral Activism among Gays and Lesbians in the United States.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43, (2013): 1382-1393. 3 For example, James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Kiesling, M., Mottet, L, and Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. 1 derived from a meta-analysis, and each country sample was weighted proportionately to the size of its adults’ population. Key findings “My sister attacked me with a knife after finding out that I ha[ve] a boyfriend, and she took my phone…. My father threatened [to] kill me...” (Gay man, Montenegro) LGBTI people in Southeastern Europe experience violence at higher rates than those in the EU. One- third (32 percent) of all respondents (and 54 percent of transgender respondents) reported being victims of violence in the past five years (compared to 26 percent and 34 percent, respectively, in the FRA survey). In half of the cases of violence, the perpetrators were known to the survivors. Only 17 percent of the cases of violence were reported to the police. The most common reasons for not reporting violence were a belief that the police would not or could not do anything, fear of reprisal from the perpetrator(s), and fear of violence from the police themselves. Action was taken against the perpetrator in only 16 percent of the most serious cases of violence reported to the police. Discrimination against LGBTI people is widespread. Ninety-two percent of respondents reported that discrimination based on sexual orientation is common (compared to 75 percent in the FRA survey), 90 percent because a person is transgender (compared to 84 percent in the FRA survey), and 67 percent because a person is intersex. Discrimination is widespread in the education system and the workplace but less so in the health care profession. Eighty percent of transgender respondents had personally experienced discrimination in the past year, much higher than the 46 percent of transgender respondents in the FRA survey. Only 8 percent of all respondents reported their most recent case of discrimination, lower than the 10 percent who reported in the FRA survey. The most common reasons for not reporting discrimination were skepticism that anything would happen or change (60 percent), a reluctance to reveal one’s identity (39 percent), and fear of discrimination and ridicule (38 percent). The most common place to report discrimination was to the police (36 percent of all those who reported). LGBTI people across the region reported widespread intolerance. Nine out of 10 respondents (89 percent) reported that it is common for people to make offensive jokes about LGBTI people in everyday life. As many as 68 percent reported that politicians commonly use offensive language to describe LGBTI people, compared to the 44 percent who reported this in the FRA survey. LGBTI people remain invisible across the region. Only 7 percent reported that public figures are open about being LGBTI compared to 25 percent in the FRA survey. Eighty-three percent of respondents with same-sex partners reported that they avoid holding hands in public because of safety concerns. More than half of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (52 percent) in the seven countries surveyed do not reveal their sexual orientation to anyone in their social environment apart from a few friends or close family members. Almost two-thirds of transgender people (65 percent) and almost all intersex people (93 percent) said that they never or rarely open about their identity. Variations across countries “…[G]ay people are treated as a marginal group of deviants without any rights in real life.” (Gay man, Slovenia) 2 Although the overall situation is poor, there are differences between countries in the region. An LGBTI Perception of Acceptance Index was constructed from the results of the survey, based on three measures: tolerance, visibility, and positive steps toward inclusion. The index shows that the situation is best in Slovenia and worst in Kosovo, then in FYR Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Generally, LGBTI people’s perception of their acceptance was consistently low across all the countries surveyed, with no country scoring above two (low acceptance). Index of Perception of General Acceptance of LGBTI People 1 = Very low acceptance 2 = Low acceptance 3 = High acceptance 4=Very high acceptance 2 1.94 1.68 1.69 1.72 1.5 1.52 1.43 1.47 1 Kosovo Macedonia Bosnia and Albania Montenegro Croatia Slovenia Herzegovina Means of the three indicators of acceptance (How common are: Expression of intolerance in public; Expression of sexual orientation in public; Positive measures to promote human rights of LGBTI people) on the scale: 1. Very rare, 2. Fairly rare, 3. Fairly common, and 4. Very common Base: Those who evaluated all questions on the scale from 1 to 4; Don’t know answers excluded (ranged from N=25 to N=146 depe nding on the question); 85% of the sample (N=1980). Variations across subgroups Life is often most difficult for transgender people, with this community experiencing the highest rates of violence and discrimination. In addition, three other characteristics stood out:  Intersecting identities, or being part of more than one minority group, (e.g., ethnic, religious), generally worsened outcomes. LGBTI people who are members of at least one other minority group were more frequently victims of harassment (78 percent) and violence (43 percent) than those who are not (58 percent and 31 percent, respectively).  People who are involved in LGBTI movements were more likely to experience harassment (70 percent) and violence (49 percent) than those who are not (60 percent and 28 percent, respectively).  LGBTI people whose perceived gender differs from their birth gender (75 percent), in particular, men who are perceived as feminine (79 percent), experienced harassment and violence in far greater numbers than others (60 percent). Way forward “Being an intersex person … means having to act (to pretend) in the family, on the street, at work, with friends, and everywhere...” (Intersex person, Kosovo) The primary purpose of this survey was to contribute evidence on the lives of LGBTI people in Southeastern Europe, rather than explore specific policy or operational interventions. Nonetheless, the research findings reveal areas in need of urgent attention from domestic policymakers, international organizations, and civil society organizations. This is especially important for the EU candidate countries, in light of the requirements of the accession process. The survey results illustrate that LGBTI people face discrimination, exclusion, and violence despite protective laws in most of the surveyed countries. As a result, rather than focusing on additional legislative steps, there is a need to 3 bring existing law to life by: expanding the evidence base; raising awareness and capacity and closing implementation gaps. Expanding the evidence base  Researchers, advocates, and policymakers should make the most of the data by conducting further analysis to inform future research and interventions in particular countries and specific subgroups of the LGBTI community. The full dataset is available here: http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3212  National statistical agencies should begin to regularly collect LGBTI-disaggregated data to create the ongoing evidence needed to build more inclusive policies and programs; thereby aligning themselves with statistical agencies in the most advanced countries. Raising awareness and capacity  Governments, in close cooperation with LGBTI civil society groups, should sensitize public servants, including teachers, social workers, health care providers, and justice sector officials, on LGBTI discrimination, and train them to better respond to the specific needs of LGBTI victims of discrimination and violence.  Governments and CSOs should focus on enhancing the awareness of the rights of LGBTI people so that they can avoid harm and seek redress when affected.  Governments, development partners and other donors are encouraged to support the capacity of LGBTI civil society groups to provide services, such as counseling, data collection, and policy reform advice to government. Closing implementation gaps  Governments should use the data to identify implementation gaps, especially related to the requirements of the EU accession process under Chapters 23 and 24, and national statistical agencies should conduct follow-up surveys to track progress.  Governments should improve the response of the criminal justice system to violence against LGBTI people, including creating safe avenues for reporting.  Civil society groups should be supported in the creation of safe spaces where LGBTI people can receive specialized services and support. Taking action to promote LGBTI inclusion is the right things to do and makes economic sense. There is increasing evidence that links exclusion with detrimental health, education and employment outcomes for LGBT people, aggregating to broader impacts on the overall economy.4 These effects can be mitigated with increased public acceptance for LGBTI people.5 Social inclusion of LGBTI people is therefore important in and of itself, but also because it is the smart thing to do. More inclusive societies are more likely to make the most of their entire stock of human capital. More open and inclusive cities are better placed to attract international capital and talent. More open and inclusive countries make attractive international tourist destinations. The data contained in this report provides a sobering view of the challenges experienced by LGBTI people in Southeastern Europe. Addressing these challenges will not only ensure that all people’s rights are protected, respected and fulfilled, but will bring benefits to the societies, economies, and region at-large. 4 For example, Banks C. (2003). The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia in Canada . Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskathewan; see also Becker, G. (1971). The Economics of Discrimination, (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; see also Badgett, M.V.L. (2014) The Economic Cost of Stigma and the Exclusion of LGBT People: A Case Study of India. Washington D.C.: World Bank 5 For example, Banks C. (2003). The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia in Canada . Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskathewan; see also Becker, G. (1971). The Economics of Discrimination, (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 4 1. Introduction There is a dearth of quantitative data on the lives of LGBTI people throughout the world. Yet, such data is needed to shine a light on the challenges that LGBTI people face in various spheres of life and inform actions that could be taken to address these challenges. This research was undertaken to better understand the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people in seven countries: five in the Western Balkans6 - Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia, and Montenegro, as well as two European Union (EU) member states Croatia and Slovenia. Conducted between February and April 2017, it was the largest survey of LGBTI people ever carried out in these countries. A total of 2,296 LGBTI people7 responded to the survey, providing a wealth of data about the lives of LGBTI people and their experiences with discrimination, violence and harassment, rights awareness, and public perceptions. The survey was designed and implemented based on a survey of LGBT people in Europe conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2012 (“the FRA survey”). The FRA survey documented the discrimination and victimization experienced by LGBT people in 27 EU countries, as well as Croatia (which was not an EU member state at the time). That report’s findings have contributed to discussions about the measures that EU member states should take to improve the situation for LGBT people living in their countries. As the FRA survey is a benchmark for understanding the lives of LGBT people in Europe, it was emulated for this study to compare the lives of LGBTI people in the Western Balkans and to inform discussions on these states’ accession to the EU.8 Unlike the FRA effort, this survey also gathered specific information on the lives of intersex people. Similar to the FRA survey, the questionnaire for intersex people was developed based on stakeholder consultations. Like the FRA survey, this survey was conducted online. In a context of widespread stigma, online engagement was chosen to allow the widest number of people to participate privately and confidentially.9 The disadvantage is that the survey was limited to those who have access to the internet. LGBTI people in rural areas, from smaller towns, with less education, and from older age groups are likely under-represented in the data. Data collection was made possible by programming the questionnaire in local languages using IPSOS’s own data entry program. All the logical checks in the questionnaire were implemented. The data collection program guaranteed full protection of respondents’ privacy and confidentiality, thus encouraging participation in this survey. A computer- assisted web interviewing method was used to conduct interviews. The survey was available in all the main web browsers, including Internet Explorer Mozilla Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera, and was adjusted for use on different types of devices — desktop computers, personal computers/laptops, tablets, and smartphones. Since respondents had to “opt-in” to participate in the survey, the collected data is based on self-selected participants and is not a random sample. Representative surveys of LGBTI populations are difficult to conduct due to the relative size of the adult population who identify as LGBTI. Weighting can adjust sample characteristics to population targets to correct over- and/or under-sampled groups. Weighting online samples can be effective in providing generalizable results, though the process is sensitive to the weighting strategy.10 Due to the 6 The Western Balkans is primarily a geopolitical term that encompasses countries of the former Yugoslavia and Albania. In the past decade, the term has been broadly associated with integration into the European Union (EU), a process through which most of the countries in the region are undergoing. Serbia was not included in the analysis, as it was the subject of an independent LGBTI survey conducted by the World Bank and partners at the same time, the results of which are being reported separately. 7 After weighting the sample, a total of 2,329 respondents were included in the analysis. For more detailed on the weighting procedure see Annex 1. 8 Slovenia and Croatia are already EU member states. 9 See Annex 1 for more details on the method, including safety measures. 10 Kennedy, C., Mercer, A., Keeter, S., Hartley, N., McGeeny, K., and Giemenz, A. (2016). Evaluating Online Nonprobability Surveys. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Research Center. 5 lack of administrative data on LGBTI populations, the weighting strategy only took into account sex assigned at birth and sexual orientation. The sample was weighted to population targets derived from a hierarchical, Bayesian meta-analysis. The sample was additionally weighted such that each country sample was weighted proportionately to the size of its adults' population. This way, regional estimates were adjusted for larger and smaller countries. The final adjustment was consistent with how the FRA survey was weighted.11 When interpreting the results, special attention should be paid to the small number of transgender (55 respondents after weighting, 53 before weighting) and intersex respondents (89 after weighting, 83 before). The research was conducted as a partnership between the World Bank, the ERA - LGBTI Equal Rights Association for Western Balkans and Turkey (ERA), IPSOS Strategic Marketing, and the Williams Institute. ERA administered the recruitment of participants through its partner civil society organizations (CSOs) across the region, of which 22 were specifically engaged to disseminate the survey.12 There were extensive efforts to make people aware of the research, to motivate them to participate in the survey, and to invite more to take part. The survey was disseminated through social networks (Facebook, Twitter, and national social networking platforms), online banners on major national websites in each country that attract large LGBTI audiences, advertisements placed on gay dating apps such as Grindr and PlanetRomeo, mailing lists, and oral channels. It is difficult to obtain a representative sample of LGBTI people, so online surveys are considered the best and most appropriate method for surveying sexual and gender minorities.13 The survey sampling method and recruitment is consistent with previous studies of these populations.14 Notably, this report is the first to provide regional data on intersex persons. However, the data are relatively meager and do not allow for a disaggregated analysis. Intersex persons have long been completely invisible, even in the more progressive countries. Momentum for intersex rights is growing, however, and intersex people have gained legal recognition in some countries, such as Germany. It is hoped that the report will be part of a broader process that helps intersex people advocate for the protection of their rights, even as many intersex people remain invisible and collecting robust data about their lives is still very difficult. The findings of the survey can be used to improve the situation for LGBTI people in the Western Balkans, Croatia, and Slovenia. Development partners, national authorities, and CSOs can use the data to advocate for the development of appropriate legal frameworks and policies to ensure that the rights of LGBTI people are adequately protected. The findings can also contribute to EU accession discussions and strengthen and facilitate the legislative and policy changes that prospective members need to fulfill EU accession requirements. This report presents an overview of the findings across the region, comparing results between LGBTI subgroups and across countries where notable. The report does not intend to provide an in-depth analysis of any one particular subgroup or country. The data sets are available online, and further analysis, including longitudinal analyses for Slovenia and Croatia, which were part of the 2012 FRA survey, is highly encouraged. This report is part of a broader World Bank research initiative: “Understanding the Socio-Economic Dimensions of LGBTI Exclusion in the Western Balkans.” In addition to this survey, the initiative includes one other large-scale survey, in Serbia (report forthcoming), that adapts the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) to LGBTI people. That survey will enable LGBTI outcomes to be 11 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2012). EU LGBT Survey Technical Report: Methodology, Online Survey, Questionnaire, and Sample. Vienna, AT: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 12 See Annex 2 for a list of organizations. 13 Koch, N. S., and Emery J. A. “The Internet and Opinion Measurement: Surveying Marginalized Populations.” Social Science Quarterly 82, no . 1 (2001): 131-1388; Rollins, J., and Hirch, H. N. “Sexual Identities and Political Engagement: A Queer Survey.” Social Politics 10, no. 3 (2003): 290-313; and Swank E., and Frahs, B. “Predicting Electoral Activism among Gays and Lesbians in the United States.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43, (2013): 1382-1393. 14 For example, James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Kiesling, M., Mottet, L, and Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. 6 compared to those of the general population. Because the SILC survey was fielded at the same time as the regional survey reported here, Serbia was excluded from the regional survey to avoid confusion among respondents and the risk of low response rates. The research initiative also includes two mystery shopper experiments; on primary education and access to the private rental market.15 The multifaceted nature of the initiative helps to develop a better understanding of the development challenges and outcomes for LGBTI people as individuals, in the economy, and in society. The remainder of Chapter 1 looks at the survey sample, the demographics of the participants, and the method for capturing the results. It also includes an overview of the legal context of the countries surveyed. In Chapter 2, the lived realities and experiences of LGBTI people are documented. The survey sought to find out if LGBTI people are open about their status; if they are aware of their rights, advocacy campaigns, and supporting organizations; and the nature of their safety concerns. Chapter 3 explores how LGBTI people believe they are perceived by the public, and how those perceptions affect their quality of life and the decisions they take on a daily basis. Chapter 4 does a deep dive into discrimination against, and harassment of, LGBTI people and the consequences. The survey gathered information about discrimination in the workplace and in the education and health care systems. Survey participants also gave their views on their experiences reporting discrimination and harassment. Violence against LGBTI people is covered in Chapter 5, which documents respondents’ experiences of violence, the frequency of its occurrence, the nature of the violence, by whom it was perpetrated, and the actions taken in response. Chapter 6 presents respondents’ views about the adequacy of the measures that are currently being taken to improve their lives, as well as the measures that they would like to see going forward. Chapter 7 consists of the conclusion, recommendations, and next steps. 15Koehler, Dominik; Harley, Georgia; Menzies, Nicholas; Senderayi, Runyararo Gladys. 2017. Discrimination against sexual minorities in education and housing: evidence from two field experiments in Serbia (English) . Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Report available here: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/161011522071811826/Discrimination-against-sexual-minorities-in-education-and- housing-evidence-from-two-field-experiments-in-Serbia 7 Access to markets, services and spaces matters Social inclusion is at the core of the World Bank’s twin goals, ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity. The 2013 World Bank flagship report “Inclusion Matters” provided an analytical framework to better understand the economic effects of exclusion and address the root causes of extreme poverty more effectively. 16 Social Inclusion is defined as the ability of people to access markets, services and spaces. Each of these dimensions provides opportunities and barriers for inclusion. Individuals and groups Source: “World Bank Group. 2013. Inclusion Matters: can be excluded from these The foundation for shared prosperity.” dimensions for a variety of reasons and exclusion from one area does not necessarily result in exclusion from others. The negative economic effects of social exclusion have been well documented and underline the importance of more inclusive programs and policies.17 Available data from various countries suggests that sexual and gender minorities are disproportionately overrepresented in the bottom 40 percent of the economy.18 19 This research builds on the markets, services and spaces model established in the “Inclusion Matters” report, by collecting data which can help policymakers, development institutions, and civil society groups to better understand the exclusion LGBTI people face in the region. It provides the first large-scale, quantitative data set on LGBTI exclusion in most of the surveyed countries and should be used to inform policies and program to more effectively foster the social inclusion of LGBTI people. 1.1. Sample and survey demographics The survey was conducted with a self-selected, nonprobability sample.20 LGBTI people are a hard- to-reach population with at least two characteristics that make standard random sampling procedures inappropriate: the absence of a sampling frame (i.e., the characteristics of the total population are unknown) and the strong need for privacy protection. As a result, it cannot be said that respondents to the survey represent the LGBTI population as a whole. To address this concern, at least in part, the sample was weighted based on a study of the literature.21 The structure of LGBTI respondents by country is provided in the table below. 16 World Bank Group. 2013. Inclusion Matters: The foundation for shared prosperity . 17 World Bank Group. 2013. Inclusion Matters: The foundation for shared prosperity. 18 USAID; the Williams Institute. 2014. The Relationship between LGBT inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis of Emerging Economies. 19 OECD. 2017. LGBTI in OECD countries. 20 See Annex 1 for more details on the sample and weighting. 21 See Annex 1 for a description of the basis for the weighting. 8 Table 1.1.1. LGBTI Respondents, by Country (weighted number of respondents) Lesbian Bisexual Bisexual Country/LGBTI group Gay men Transgender Intersex Total women women men Albania 77 133 96 58 4 25 394 Bosnia and Herzegovina 97 174 122 70 7 17 487 Croatia 118 211 147 94 14 7 590 Kosovo 36 66 46 24 13 15 200 FYR Macedonia 51 97 71 41 7 15 282 Montenegro 17 27 20 12 3 6 85 Slovenia 61 103 72 42 8 4 289 Total 457 811 574 341 56 89 2329 In summary, the demographics of respondents are as follows:22  Sex: Respondents who were assigned male sex at birth were slightly more likely to respond to the survey (53 percent) compared to those who were assigned female sex at birth (47 percent). o Slightly more transgender respondents were assigned female sex at birth (52 percent). On the other hand, among intersex respondents, a larger percentage were assigned male sex at birth (64 percent).23  Age: The average age of respondents was 27.6 years. Only 3 percent of respondents were over 45 years old.  Education: Almost all respondents had at least secondary school education, while only 2 percent had primary school education or less. About half of the respondents had college, university, or other higher education. o Transgender and intersex respondents were less likely to have higher education.  Employment status: Every second respondent indicated that he or she was in paid employment (49 percent), including those who were on temporary leave from work. Every third respondent was a student (32 percent), while every fifth respondent was unemployed or otherwise not working (including those in unpaid or voluntary work and those who are retired or are otherwise not working). o Intersex respondents were more likely to be unemployed, while gay respondents were more often in paid employment. Bisexual women were more likely to be students than to be engaged in paid work, indicating that they were among the youngest respondents.  Income: The monthly net household income of respondents ranged from €200 to €1,000 (20 percent reported income of €200–400, 20 percent income of €400–600, and 21 percent income of €600–1,000). Slightly less than one in ten respondents reported extremely low or high monthly incomes: 9 percent reported income of less than €200 per month, while 8 percent reported income above €2,000. o Intersex respondents have the highest percentage of low monthly income (less than €400).  Residence: The majority of respondents live in urban areas. Every second respondent lives in the capital city (53 percent), while an additional 20 percent live in other big cities. Only 6 percent of respondents live in rural areas. o More transgender people live in the capital city (67 percent) than intersex people (39 percent). 22 See Annex 3 for a full description of the survey demographics, including country-specific data. 23 For many transgender and intersex persons, “sex assigned at birth” is not a relevant category, as they do not identify with it. 9  Relationship status: Only 51 percent of respondents were single. One-third were in a relationship and not living with their partner (31 percent), while 16 percent lived with their partner or spouse. o Gay men respondents were predominantly single (60 percent), as were bisexual men and intersex respondents (56 percent). The majority of lesbian respondents and bisexual women, on the other hand, were in a relationship, as were transgender respondents. Also, many lesbian respondents live with their partner or spouse (22 percent).  Same-sex partners: Four out of five respondents in a relationship had same-sex partners (79 percent), while about one-fifth had a partner of the opposite sex (21 percent). o Almost all respondents who identify as lesbian or gay had a partner of the same sex (99 percent of lesbians and 98 percent of gays). On the other hand, every second bisexual man or woman had a same-sex partner (54 percent of bisexual men and 53 percent of bisexual women).  Marital status/civil status: 91 percent of respondents indicated that their civil status was single. Only 6 percent were married or living in a registered partnership. o Of those who were married or in a registered partnership, 48 percent were in a legally recognized relationship with a same-sex partner and 52 percent were with a partner of a different sex.  Living with children: One-fifth of respondents live with one or more children in their household (20 percent). o Among LGBTI groups, transgender respondents (34 percent) and bisexual women (28 percent) reported having one or more children living in their household, which is more than lesbians (15 percent) and gays (14 percent).  Minority status: Slightly less than two-thirds of respondents considered themselves to be part of a sexual minority (62 percent), and an additional 15 percent part of a gender minority. A total of 31 percent of bisexual men and 28 percent of intersex respondents did not consider themselves to be a part of any of the listed minorities. o One out of ten respondents felt that they are part of a religious or an ethnic minority group. A fifth of respondents said they do not consider themselves to be part of any of the listed minorities (18 percent). 1.2 Legal Context Homosexuality, predominantly interpreted as sex between men and almost never referring to women or other identities, was criminalized in the Western Balkans for most of the 20th century. It was first decriminalized in the socialist republics of Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in 1977, and the rest of the countries in the region followed in the 1990s, after the collapse of Yugoslavia. Relying mainly on EU and Council of Europe recommendations, anti-discrimination legislation has been introduced across the region since the start of the 21st century (table 1.2.1). The legislation mainly offers protection against discrimination in employment, education, and other public services. In most countries, protection is offered on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only country in the region that protects intersex persons from discrimination. On the other hand, FYR Macedonia is the only country that does not protect LGBT people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression in its anti-discrimination law. FYR Macedonia is also the only country that does not offer any communities legal protection against hate crimes and/or hate speech. 10 Table 1.2.1. National Anti-Discrimination Laws and Characteristics They Protect Name of Law Protected Characteristics Country (Date of adoption of a law or relevant Sex Sexual Gender amendment) characteristic orientation identity s Law on Protection from Discrimination Albania (February 4, 2010) ✓ ✓ × Bosnia and Law on Prohibition of Discrimination Herzegovina (July 23, 2009, amended on August 31, 2016) ✓ ✓ ✓ Croatia The Anti-Discrimination Act (July 9, 2008) ✓ ✓ × Law on the Protection from Discrimination Kosovo (May 28, 2015) ✓ ✓ × The Law on Prohibition of Discrimination Montenegro (July 27, 2010, amended on March 26, 2014) ✓ ✓ × Law on Prevention and Protection against FYR Macedonia Discrimination (April 8, 2010) × × × Protection against Discrimination Act (April Slovenia 21, 2016) ✓ ✓ × Most of the countries do not allow same-sex marriages or registered partnerships. Only Croatia and Slovenia allow same-sex registered partnerships, and Slovenia is the only country in the region where same-sex marriages have been legalized (since February 2017). Transgender people are negatively impacted by the fact that their personal data (such as name and gender marker) are not reflected in official documents in a way that recognizes their gender identity. In two out of the seven countries surveyed (Kosovo and FYR Macedonia), legal measures for reassigned gender recognition do not exist at all (table 1.2.2). Although gender recognition procedures exist in the other countries, they are often lengthy and complicated. For instance, the law in Albania makes it possible for persons to change both their name and gender marker in official documents; however, the changes can be made only pursuant to a court order and apply only prospectively, meaning that existing documents remain unchanged. To change a gender marker, there must be a medical report that proves that the person’s gender or sex has changed.24 Similarly, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Slovenia, transgender people are required to undergo sterilization before a gender identity that is different to that assigned at birth can be recognized. Although in some cases sterilization is not explicitly required by law, it becomes necessary because of legislation that requires proof of medical gender reassignment or a mandatory medical opinion that is traditionally only provided after genital surgery.25 Croatia is the only country that does not require medical procedures, such as sterilization, surgical interventions, or hormonal treatment, as preconditions for legal gender recognition. However, in Croatia, as in all the other countries that have procedures for legal gender recognition, a mental disorder diagnosis, an assessment of time lived in the new gender identity, and a single civil status (forcing those who are married to get divorced) are required before changes can be made in official documents. Because of these onerous requirements, many transgender people still have documents that do not match their gender identity and consequently face serious difficulties accessing services and facilities. Daily activities such as applying for a job, getting a bank loan, and boarding a plane can become sources of distress, discrimination, and 24 UNDP, “Being LGBTI in Eastern Europe: Albania Country Report. Reducing Inequalities & Exclusion and Combating Homophobia & Transphobia Experienced by LGBTI People in Albania” (New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2017), http://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/library/democratic_governance/being-lgbti-in-eastern-europe--albania- country-report.html. 25 As the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has critically remarked, it is of “great conce rn that transgender people appear to be the only group in Europe subject to legally prescribed, state-enforced sterilization.” 11 harassment. Further, showing personal documents that contain a name and gender marking that do not correspond to the person’s appearance can trigger violence. Table 1.2.2. Procedures for Legal Gender Recognition in Countries Surveyed26 Existence of procedures diagnosis/psychological No compulsory medical No compulsory surgical intervention required intervention required (available for minors) sterilization required Change of gender on documents to match No "Gender Identity No age restrictions opinion required divorce required gender identity No compulsory No compulsory Name change Disorder” Country official Albania ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - - Bosnia and Herzegovina ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - - Croatia ✓ ✓ ✓ - - ✓ ✓ - ✓ Kosovo - - - - - - - - - Montenegro ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - - FYR Macedonia - ✓ - - - - - - - Slovenia ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - - 26 TGEU, “The Transgender Rights Europe Map & Index 2017,” Transgender Europe, https://tgeu.org/trans -rights-map-2017. 12 2. Daily Life for LGBTI People in Southeastern Europe “Being gay … is the same as being invisible, unworthy, and hopeless, since revealing that you are a gay can lead to psychological and physical violence, from the family or the community.” (Gay man, Kosovo) To understand the daily life of LGBTI people and to provide context on the lived reality of LGBTI people in the region, the survey asked questions on openness about being LGBTI, safety, rights awareness, LGBTI movements, and awareness of advocacy campaigns. The responses help to understand the local context in which LGBTI people live and indicate the readiness of communities to deal with negative impacts of discrimination, exclusion, and violence. CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS The majority of LGBTI people hide their sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics in everyday life. Only 3 percent are completely open about their LGBTI identity, while 52 percent are not open at all. This is likely related to an overall feeling of unsafety that LGBTI respondents expressed; 61 percent said they avoid certain places because they do not feel safe. LGBTI people often do not know about laws protecting them from discrimination. Only 49 percent of respondents know about laws protecting them from SOGI based discrimination. 2.1 Openness about sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics 27 “I haven’t told anyone. Worst of all is that I have no one to tell…Everyone is anti-gay(s).” (Gay man, Croatia) Overall, most LGBTI people (52 percent) never or rarely reveal their sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics (figure 2.1.1). This rises to almost three quarters for intersex people (72 percent) and for bisexual men (73 percent). However, transgender people and lesbians were more likely to be open about their status. 27Openess about sexual orientation is a variable computed on the basis of a mean value of the respondents’ answers when asked about the number of people they are open with/have come out to about their sexual orientation among nine groups: parents/legal guardians, siblings, other family members, friends, neighbors, work colleagues/schoolmates, immediate superior/head of department, customers/clients/etc. at work, and medical staff/health care providers. Answers for openness to parents/legal guardians were given on a three-point scale (1 - None of them, 2 - One of them, and 3 - Both/all of them) and for all other groups of people on a four-point scale (where 1 - None, 2 - A few, 3 - Most, and 4 - All). The answer “Doesn’t apply to me” was excluded from computation. Based on the mean value of the answers for all nine groups, respondents were divided into four categories, i.e., levels of openness about their sexual orientation: Level 1 - Not open/out, with a mean value between 1 and 1.44; level 2, with a mean value between 1.5 and 2.44; level 3, with a mean value between 2.5 and 3.44; and level 4 – Open/out, with a mean value between 3.5 and 4. In the same manner, respondents’ general openness about being transgender or intersex was determined on the basis of questions on openness about gender identity/being intersex in relation to various groups of people from different settings, in the form of two indicators with four levels of openness. 13 Figure 2.1.1. Openness about Sexual Orientation,* Gender Identity,** and Sex Characteristics*** (%) Not open Mostly not open Mostly open Open REGIONAL AVERAGE 52 34 11 3 Lesbian 42 39 13 5 Gay 47 37 12 4 Bisexual women 53 36 10 1 Bisexual men 73 20 5 2 Gender identity 36 29 24 11 Sex characteristics 74 19 5 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 Questions: To how many people among the following groups are you open about your sexual orientation/gender identity/sex characteristics? (Computed variable - Openess about sexual orientation/gender identity/sex characteristics). *Base: All respondents who consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; 98.5% of the sample (N=2293); item missingness (N=2); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=11 to N=245 ). **Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); item missingness (N=9); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=2 to N=8). ***Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); item missingess (N=12); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=2 to N=8). “I live with my partner, but I tell people that he is my tenant…” (Gay man, Croatia) Overall, people were more likely to be open with friends and work colleagues and least likely to be open with neighbors, work customers, and clients (see Annex 3 table A3.1). Openness about sexual orientation varied markedly across the countries included in the survey (figure 2.1.2). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from Albania (69 percent) and Kosovo (74 percent) were more likely to be closeted. In contrast, respondents from Slovenia and Croatia were more likely to be out. Regionally, only a small percentage of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people reported that they are always open about their sexual orientation. 14 Figure 2.1.2. Openness about Sexual Orientation, by country (%) Not open Mostly not open Mostly open Open REGIONAL AVERAGE 52 35 11 3 Albania 69 25 3 3 BiH 58 33 7 1 Croatia 39 44 13 4 Kosovo 74 20 4 2 FYR Macedonia 59 32 7 2 Montenegro 51 37 10 2 Slovenia 21 42 29 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: To how many people among the following groups are you open about your sexual orientation? (Computed variable - Openess about sexual orientation). Base: All respondents who consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; 98.5% of the sample (N=2293); item missingness (N=2); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=11 to N=245 ). “Most of the LGBT people find staying in the closet to be the best option for fitting in the community. Especially when it comes to people who don’t live in Skopje. These smaller communities are extremely conservative, and there is no toleration at all.” (Gay man, FYR Macedonia) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were more likely to be closeted about their status if they (i) live outside big cities, (ii) have a monthly household income of less than €400, (iii) do not have a relationship or partner, or (iv) are not involved in LGBTI movements. Regionally, 60 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people said that they hide their sexual orientation from both of their parents (or legal guardians), while those from Kosovo and FYR Macedonia were even more likely to do so (table 2.1.2). Also, the percentage of bisexual men who had not revealed their sexual orientation to their parents or legal guardians (76 percent) was significantly above the regional average. On the other hand, almost one-quarter of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people reported being open about their sexual orientation to both their parents or legal guardians. Croatia, and especially Slovenia, stand out as countries with the highest percentage of people who reported openness about their sexual orientation to both of their parents (every third person in Croatia and every second person in Slovenia). Furthermore, lesbians (31 percent) and gays (28 percent) were more likely to reveal their sexual orientation to both parents or legal guardians compared to bisexual people (19 percent of bisexual women and 11 percent of bisexual men). 15 Table 2.1.2. Levels of Openness about Sexual Orientation to Parents/Legal Guardians, by country (%) Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR None of them 60 67 66 50 81 75 56 32 One of them 17 19 17 20 9 12 16 16 Both/all of them 23 14 17 30 10 13 27 51 N 2293 394 487 590 200 282 85 289 Question: To how many people among the following groups are you open/out to about your sexual orientation: parents/legal guardians? Base: All respondents who consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; 98.5% of the sample (N=2293); item missingness (N=2). Only 11 percent of transgender people and 2 percent of intersex people reported that they are completely open about their gender identity or being intersex (figure 2.1.3). Among intersex people, as many as three out of four are not open about their situation, a figure that is one in three for transgender people. Figure 2.1.3. Openness about Gender Identity and Being Intersex (%) Not open Mostly not open Mostly open Open 74 36 29 24 19 11 5 2 Openess about gender Openess about being identity* intersex** Question: To how many people among the following groups are you open about your gender identity/being intersex? (Computed variables: Openness about gender identity and Openness about being intersex). *Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); item missingness (N=9); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=2 to N=8). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); item missingess (N=12); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=2 to N=8). 2.2 Safety On average, more than half of LGBTI respondents (61 percent) said that they avoid certain locations for safety reasons, with the highest number in Kosovo (73 percent) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (71 percent) and the lowest in Slovenia (43 percent) (figure 2.2.1). The percentage of transgender (78 percent) and gay (67 percent) people who reported that they avoid certain places because they feel 16 unsafe is above the regional average, while the percentage of bisexual women is below the average at 48 percent. Figure 2.2.1. Avoiding Places Because of Feeling Unsafe, by country and LGBTI group (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER YES Kosovo 73 Bosnia and Herzegovina 71 Albania 61 Croatia 60 FYR Macedonia 58 Montenegro 55 Slovenia 43 Gay 67 Lesbian 63 Bisexual male 62 Bisexual female 48 Transgender* 78 Intersex** 65 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Question: Do you avoid certain places or locations for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses (N=162); Don't know responses for LGB respondents (N=153). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); Don't know responses (N=3). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); Don't know responses (N=7). Notably, males who are perceived as feminine, as well as those who are not open about their sexual orientation, often avoided certain places for safety reasons. Generally, LGBTI people indicated that they tend to stay away from places where there is a greater probability of being surrounded by many unknown people (such as streets, squares, public transport, cafes, restaurants, clubs, public premises, building, parks, and other public places) as opposed to places of more regular contact (workplace, sports clubs, school, and home) (figure 2.2.2). 17 Figure 2.2.2. Perceiving Specific Locations as Unsafe to be Open about Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity/Being Intersex (%) - PERCENTAGES WHO AVOID DIFFERENT LOCATIONS A street, square, car parking lot, or other public place 80 Public transport 79 A cafe, restaurant, pub, club 75 Public premises or buildings 74 A park 65 Workplace 60 A sports club 55 School 48 My home 43 Other 19 0 20 40 60 80 Question: Where do you avoid being open about your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed by others? Base: 61% of the sample, multiple answers (N=1421); Don't know responses (N=37). There were some significant differences between countries. LGBTI people from Bosnia and Herzegovina reported that they commonly avoid being open about their status in public areas such as streets, squares, car parking lots, public transport, cafés, restaurants, pubs, clubs, parks, or sports clubs. In FYR Macedonia, however, LGBTI people are more likely to avoid being open at school or at home, while in Kosovo it was more frequently at home. The majority (83 percent) of LGBTI people with same-sex partners said that they avoid holding hands in public for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed. This tendency was highest in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (90 percent) and lowest (but still a majority) in Slovenia (61 percent) (figure 2.2.3). “Me and my girlfriend were holding hands (in a public place) and suddenly some teenagers came to us and started insulting [us] because we are lesbians. They physically attacked me and my [girl] friend. This incident happened in the morning and the city was full of people, but nobody helped us…” (Lesbian, Slovenia) Public expressions of status, such as holding hands, appear to be a much greater problem for men. Bisexual men and gays were much more likely to avoid holding hands with a same-sex partner in public (93 percent and 92 percent, respectively) than lesbian (72 percent), bisexual women (73 percent), transgender (67 percent), and intersex respondents (79 percent). 18 Figure 2.2.3. Avoiding Holding Hands with Same-Sex Partner in Public Because of Feeling Unsafe, by country and LGBTI group (%) Yes Don't know No REGIONAL AVERAGE 83 2 15 Bosnia and Herzegovina 90 2 8 Kosovo 90 4 6 FYR Macedonia 89 2 9 Croatia 86 2 12 Montenegro 76 4 20 Albania 75 2 23 Slovenia 61 3 36 Bisexual male 93 1 6 Gay 92 3 5 Bisexual female 74 4 23 Lesbian 72 2 26 Intersex** 79 4 17 Transgender* 67 3 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Do you avoid holding hands in public with a same-sex partner for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed? Base: 75% of the sample – “I do not have a same-sex partner” answer excluded (N=1753); Don't know resposnes (N=38). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender (N=33); Don't know resposnes (N=1). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; (N=68); Don't know responses (N=3). Further, two out of five transgender people (39 percent) reported that they always or often avoid expressing their preferred gender through physical appearance and clothing for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed, while roughly the same proportion never avoid it (figure 2.2.4). 19 Figure 2.2.4. Avoiding Expressing Preferred Gender through Physical Appearance and Clothing Because of Feeling Unsafe (%) 40 I always avoid it I often avoid it I sometimes avoid it I avoid it, but rarely 20 38 I never avoid it Not sure 21 18 12 10 1 0 Question: How often, it at all, do you avoid expressing your gender (or your preferred/desired gender) through your physical appearnce and clothing for fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed? Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); item missingness (N=3). 2.3 Rights awareness Only half (49 percent) of the LGBTI people who took part in the survey were aware of laws that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics. Most of the countries have legal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity except for FYR Macedonia. Only one country, Bosnia and Herzegovina has legal protections for sex characteristics. LGBTI people had particularly poor knowledge about the protection of intersex people in employment (only 22 percent were aware of this).28 LGBTI people in Bosnia and Herzegovina had the lowest levels of awareness (roughly only a third) about the three grounds for protection against discrimination: sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only country that protects against discrimination based on all three characteristics. On the other hand, the most aware LGBTI people, where half or more were informed, were in FYR Macedonia, where there are no legal protections for these categories (figure 2.3.1). 28 Respondents were poorly informed about existing anti-discrimination laws. They often wrongly believed that there is a law in their country that forbids employment discrimination when such a law does really not exist, or the reverse, that such a law does not exist in cases when it actually does. Also, a large number of LGBTI people in each country had no knowledge of whether an anti- discrimination law exists in their country at all. 20 Figure 2.3.1. Awareness of Anti-Discrimination Laws Protecting the Three Grounds: Percentages of Informed and Uninformed Individuals, by country (%) SEXUAL ORIENTATION Uninformed Informed REGIONAL AVERAGE 51 48.8 COUNTRIES WITH LEGAL PROTECTIONS Kosovo 41 59 Montenegro 45 55 Croatia 46 54 Albania 49 51 Slovenia 54 46 Bosnia and Herzegovina 66 34 COUNTRIES WITHOUT LEGAL PROTECTIONS FYR Macedonia 46 54 GENDER IDENTITY REGIONAL AVERAGE 51 48.8 COUNTRIES WITH LEGAL PROTECTIONS Kosovo 41 59 Montenegro 45 55 Croatia 46 54 Albania 49 51 Slovenia 54 46 Bosnia and Herzegovina 66 34 COUNTRIES WITHOUT LEGAL PROTECTIONS FYR Macedonia 46 54 SEX CHARACTERISTICS REGIONAL AVERAGE 78 22.4 COUNTRIES WITH LEGAL PROTECTIONS Bosnia and Herzegovina 87 13 COUNTRIES WITHOUT LEGAL PROTECTIONS FYR Macedonia 49 51 Kosovo 75 25 Albania 78 22 Slovenia 81 19 Croatia 82 18 Montenegro 82 18 Question: In the country where you live, is there a law that forbids discrimination against persons because of their: 1) sexual orientation, 2) gender identity, 3) sex characteristics - when applying for a job? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses are categorized as uninformed. At the regional level, those most aware of their rights were transgender people, as a little more than half (53 percent) were aware of laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on gender identity (figure 2.3.2). Every second lesbian, gay, and bisexual individual (49 percent) was informed about the existence of anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation in employment. However, only 28 percent of intersex people in the region were well informed about laws that guarantee the right of job applicants/employees to be treated fairly, regardless of their sex characteristics. 21 Figure 2.3.3. Awareness of Anti-Discrimination Laws for LGB Subgroups: Difference between Percentages of Informed and Uninformed Individuals, by country (%) 100 Uninformed Informed 80 GENDER IDENTITY SEX CHARACTERISTICS 60 61 52 53 55 54 40 49 45 34 20 0 -20 39 -40 48 46 45 46 51 55 -60 66 -80 -100 REGIONAL ALB BIH CRO KOS MCD MNE SLO AVERAGE Question: In the country where you live, is there a law that forbids discrimination against persons because of their sexual orientation - when applying for a job? Base: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual respondents (94% of the sample, N=2185); all Don't know responses were categorized as uninformed. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from Kosovo were the most informed about their rights (61 percent), while the least informed were in Bosnia and Herzegovina (34 percent) (figure 2.3.3). Rights awareness was not connected to experiences of discrimination in employment (when looking for a job) in the past 12 months. Respondents were much better informed about same-sex marriage and partnership rights, with 87 percent being fully aware of these rights. LGBTI people from Bosnia and Herzegovina were the most aware about the legal status of same-sex unions (96 percent informed), while the least aware were those from Kosovo (64 percent). Interestingly, about every fifth LGBTI person from Kosovo (incorrectly) believed that same-sex marriages or registered partnerships were legal in their country. Also, LGBTI people in Albania (17 percent) were significantly less informed compared to the regional average (figure 2.3.4). 22 Figure 2.3.4. Awareness of Legal Status of Same-Sex Unions (Marriages and Registered Partnerships): Percentages of Informed and Uninformed LGBTI People, by country (%) Uninformed Informed -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 REGIONAL AVERAGE 13 87 COUNTRIES WITH LEGAL RECOGNITION Slovenia 10 90 Croatia 12 88 COUNTRIES WITHOUT LEGAL RECOGNITION Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 96 Montenegro 9 91 FYR Macedonia 12 88 Albrania 17 83 Kosovo 36 64 Question: As far as you know, can same-sex couples legally marry and/or enter registered partnerships in the country where you live? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses were categorized as uninformed. Notably, bisexual people (men at 18 percent and women at 17 percent) were more uninformed about laws concerning same-sex unions than lesbians (9 percent) and gay people (10 percent). Young LGBTI persons, aged between 18 and 25 years, who do not live in the capital or any other large city, as well as those with the lowest monthly household income, were the least informed about laws regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in their countries. On the other hand, LGBTI people who are involved in LGBTI movements or open about their sexual orientation were more informed. Regarding laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex characteristics, there are no clear demographic profiles of informed and uninformed LGBTI people. Those involved in LGBTI movements were slightly more informed compared to the regional average. Demographic variations in awareness about the legal status of same-sex unions are similar to those in laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The less informed were young LGBTI people and those with lower monthly household incomes (between €400 and €600). LGBTI people who are not open about their sexual orientation were less informed about regulations concerning same-sex unions. 23 2.4 LGBTI movements, campaigns, and supporting organizations “All of my friends, including me, who are a part of the LGBTI community, are not actively involved in organizations that protect the rights of LGBTI people because we want to keep our sexual identity hidden as much as we can. We are afraid that if we are identified as supporters [of] such organizations, we would be discriminated against or even be exposed to violence.” (Bisexual female, Albania) The majority (82 percent) of LGBTI survey participants indicated that they are not involved in LGBTI movements. Transgender people across the region (47 percent) and LGBTI people from Albania (30 percent) reported the greatest engagement. The percentage of LGBTI people involved in LGBTI movements rises with increasing openness about sexual orientation. Also, the highly educated and those living in capital cities are more engaged. Among LGBTI people who reported that they are not involved in LGBTI movements, more than half (58 percent) considered taking part; that figure was 70 percent in FYR Macedonia but much lower in Croatia, where they were less inclined to engage. Figure 2.4.1. Visibility of Public Awareness Campaigns Addressing Discrimination on Different Grounds (%) - PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER YES - REGIONAL AVERAGE Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people 67 Transgender people 50 Intersex people 32 People with disabilities 68 On the basis of sex 62 Ethnic minorities and migrant groups 59 On the basis of religion 40 On the basis of age 26 0 20 40 60 Question: In the country where you live, have you ever seen any program or awareness campaign by either the government or a nongovernmental organization addressing discrimination on the basis of/against...? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses for gay, lesbian and bisexual (N=215); transgender (N=319); intersex (N=455); disabilities (N=301); sex (N=296); ethnic minorities and migrants groups (N=334); religion (N=431); age (N=474). Regionally, the most noticeable public awareness campaigns are those dealing with discrimination against people with disabilities, as well as discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people (figure 2.4.1). Two-thirds (67 percent) of all LGBTI people had seen campaigns addressing discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, which was similar to the percentage (65 percent) reported in the FRA survey. On the other hand, campaigns addressing discrimination based on age and attitudes toward intersex people were the least visible (seen by less than a third of LGBTI people). However, countries vary considerably regarding the visibility of different awareness campaigns. Discrimination campaigns against LGBTI people, in general, are most visible in Albania and least visible in Kosovo (table 2.4.1). The visibility of discrimination campaigns may relate to the policies in place 24 protecting LGBTI people in each country. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina protects against sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics, and LGBTI people from Bosnia and Herzegovina report lower visibility of campaigns addressing discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. The pattern may reflect a legal environment already protective of these LGBTI groups. Other patterns may reflect legal and social environments deterring the visibility of campaigns. For example, there is only one country that protects against discrimination based on sex characteristics, and the visibility of intersex campaigns is lower than other LGBTI campaigns. Table 2.4.1. Variation in Visibility of Public Awareness Campaigns, by country (%) - PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO ARE AWARE Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR Discrimination against gay, lesbian, and 67 78 59 64 54 67 83 80 bisexual people Discrimination against people with disabilities 67 75 63 71 54 61 84 68 Discrimination based on sex 61 52 61 66 74 56 70 59 Discrimination against ethnic minorities and 59 58 56 59 51 61 56 69 migrant groups Discrimination against transgender people 50 65 45 41 39 49 65 56 Discrimination based on religion 40 40 48 34 30 42 43 43 Discrimination against intersex people 32 38 33 25 22 35 53 30 Discrimination based on age 26 28 17 32 21 21 28 30 N 2329 394 487 590 200 282 85 289 Question: In the country where you live, have you ever seen any program or awareness campaign by either the government or a nongovernmental organization addressing...? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses for gay, lesbian and bisexual (N=215); transgender (N=319); intersex (N=455); disabilities (N=301); sex (N=296); ethnic minorities and migrants groups (N=334); religion (N=431); age (N=474). There were no material differences between LGBTI subgroups regarding the visibility of programs and awareness campaigns addressing discrimination against LGBTI people. Not surprisingly, LGBTI people who live in capital cities, have a higher education, are involved in LGBTI movements, and are more open about their sexual orientation were most familiar with initiatives that address discrimination against them. Familiarity with organizations providing support to LGBTI people Except for intersex people, a sizable majority of LGBTI people were familiar with organizations that support the LGBTI group they belong to: almost every transgender individual (98 percent), nine out of 10 lesbians (92 percent), 86 percent of gays, 82 percent of bisexual women, and 71 percent of bisexual men. On the other hand, only half of intersex people (50 percent) knew about organizations that provide support to people who are discriminated against because they are intersex (figure 2.4.2). 25 Figure 2.4.2. Familiarity with LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Organizations (%) No Yes 100 92 97 88 95 94 84 100 93 87 76 90 77 86 89 94 80 86 60 40 20 16 24 23 14 8 3 12 5 6 7 4 13 10 11 6 0 Lesbians aware of domestic organizations supporting Gays aware of domestic organizations supporting lesbians who face discrimination gays who face discrimination Base: Lesbian respondents; 20% of the sample (N=457). Base: Gay respondents; 35% of the sample (N=812). 100 82 67 85 90 78 95 83 71 78 60 69 64 76 67 86 80 60 40 20 33 40 36 33 22 29 22 31 24 18 15 10 17 14 0 8 Bisexual women aware of domestic organizations Bisexual men aware of domestic organizations supporting bisexuals who face discrimination supporting bisexuals who face discrimination Base: Bisexual women respondents; 25% of the sample Base: Bisexual men respondents; 15% of the sample (N=575). (N=341). 100 80 50 60 98 40 20 50 2 0 REGION REGION Transgender people aware of domestic organizations Intersex people aware of organizations supporting supporting transgender people who face discrimination intersex people who face discrimination Base: Transgender respondents; 2% of the sample (N=55). Base: Intersex respondents; 4% of the sample (N=89). No missing or refused responses from any LGBTI group. 26 Attendance at LGBTI events Regionally, nearly half of respondents (47 percent) had attended an LGBTI event at least once. Only 18 percent reported that there were no events in their place of residence, and 35 percent had never attended an LGBTI event in their city. In Albania and Kosovo, the percentage of LGBTI people who had never attended an LGBTI event was above the regional average (53 percent and 46 percent, respectively). LGBTI people from Croatia had attended LGBTI events more often (55 percent) than in the other countries surveyed. LGBTI people from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia reported that there were no LGBTI events where they lived. Transgender people (72 percent), as well as lesbians (56 percent), attended LGBTI events more frequently than other LGBTI groups. Conversely, about half of the bisexual men surveyed (51 percent) had never attended an LGBTI event. People between 26 and 35 years old, living in a capital city, with higher education, in paid work, or with a monthly household income of more than €1,000 were more likely to have attended LGBTI events. 27 3. Perception of Public Attitudes Toward LGBTI People Public attitudes toward minority groups can have an important impact on the quality of their lives. Studies show that the lack of social acceptance and a pervasive feeling of disapproval and neglect may have grave consequences on LGBTI people’s physical and psychological well-being.29 To better understand the lived experience of LGBTI people, the survey asked respondents to state their: ₋ Perceptions of public attitudes toward LGBTI people, including expressions of intolerance and the visibility of LGBTI people in public ₋ Perceptions of changes that would have a positive impact on LGBTI people’s lives, including positive measures to promote respect for the human rights of LGBTI people Together, these three variables (tolerance, visibility, and positive measures) were used to construct an LGBTI Perception of Acceptance Index. CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS LGBTI people across the region reported widespread public hostility: Nine out of 10 respondents across the region (89 percent) said that people commonly make offensive jokes about LGBTI people in everyday life. In the FRA survey, 37 percent of respondents reported that jokes were “very widespread.” According to 68 percent of respondents, politicians commonly use offensive language to describe LGBTI people, compared to 44 percent who reported this in the FRA survey. Only 7 percent of LGBTI people stated that public figures are open about being LGBTI compared to 25 percent in the FRA survey. Slovenia is the most accepting country regarding all three indicators, while the least accepting are Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and FYR Macedonia. 3.1 Attitudes toward LGBTI people and their visibility According to LGBTI people in the region, expressions of intolerance are high, LGBTI people are hardly visible in public, and positive measures to improve their lives are rare. 89 percent of people said that offensive jokes are common, and 85 percent reported public expressions of hatred and aversion. Only 8 percent of respondents said that it is common for same-sex partners to hold hands in public compared to 86 percent who said this about heterosexual couples. A mere 7 percent of respondents were of the view that it is typical for public figures to be open about their LGBTI status. Moreover, only a quarter of respondents across the region (25 percent) thought that positive measures to promote the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are common, while even fewer thought this about the promotion of the rights of transgender (14 percent) or intersex people (12 percent) (figure 3.1.1). 29 See, for example, I. H. Meyer, “Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence,” Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 5 (2003): 674–97; and V. M. Mays and S. D. Cochran, “Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination among Lesbian, Gay And Bisexual Adults in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health 91, no. 11 (2001): 1869–76. 28 Figure 3.1.1. Indices of Acceptance of LGBTI People (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON - REGIONAL AVERAGE Jokes that might be considered offensive in everyday life about LGBTI people 89 Intolerance Expressing Expressions of hatred and aversion toward LGBTI people in public 85 Offensive language about LGBTI people by politicians 68 67 Assaults and harassment against LGBTI people Heterosexual partners holding hands in public 86 Visibility of people LGBTI Same-sex partners holding hands in public 8 Public figures are open about themselves being LGBTI people 7 Positive measures to promote respect for the human rights of LGB people 25 measures Positive Positive measures to promote respect for the human rights of transgender people 14 Positive measures to promote respect for the human rights of intersex people 12 Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=25 to N=146). 3.1.1 Intolerance and visibility vary across countries “…[G]ay people are treated as a marginal group of deviants without any rights in real life.” (Gay man, Slovenia) Intolerance and visibility vary across the region but are problematic in all countries (table 3.1.1.1). Slovenia, for example, stands out with a smaller share (but still a majority) of respondents perceive expressions of intolerance to be common. In Slovenia, 71 percent said that offensive jokes about LGBTI people are common and 56 percent believed that about expressions of hatred and aversion, compared to a regional average of 89 percent and 85 percent, respectively. Just about half of respondents from Slovenia (51 percent) thought that politicians commonly use offensive language about LGBTI people, while 27 percent viewed assaults and harassment of LGBTI people as routine. As many as 50 percent of respondents in Slovenia thought that positive measures to promote respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were widespread, a positive assessment that could be explained by the recent advancements in the recognition of same-sex partnerships there.30 However, people in Slovenia were much less positive about the existence of measures that promote respect for the human rights of transgender and intersex people, as only 20 percent and 16 percent, respectively, thought they were common. 30On February 24, 2017, Slovenia provided same-sex partners with the same legal rights as married people, with the exception of the ability to pursue adoption and in-vitro fertilization. Partnership of same-sex couples was recognized in 2006. 29 Table 3.1.1.1. Indices of Acceptance of LGBTI People, by country (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON Montenegr Herzegovin Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR o a Intolerance Jokes that might be considered offensive in 89 88 96 91 95 89 91 71 everyday life about LGBTI people Expressions of hatred and aversion toward LGBTI 85 88 94 84 92 93 91 56 people in public Offensive language about LGBTI people by 68 65 79 65 69 78 91 51 politicians Assaults and harassment against LGBTI people 67 74 79 67 82 67 76 27 Visibility Same-sex partners holding hands in public 8 12 4 5 2 8 14 14 Public figures are open about themselves being 7 8 7 8 2 4 17 5 LGBTI Positive measures Positive measures to promote respect for the 25 27 13 29 14 11 36 50 human rights of LGB people Positive measures to promote respect for the 14 20 8 15 10 7 27 20 human rights of transgender people Positive measures to promote respect for the 12 16 7 13 9 6 23 16 human rights of intersex people Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don’t know responses range (N=25 to N=146). Expressions of intolerance are most common in Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, and Kosovo. Nearly all respondents (96 percent) from Bosnia and Herzegovina felt that jokes about LGBTI people are common and 94 percent thought the same about expressions of hatred and aversion. Offensive language about LGBTI people by politicians was perceived as most common in Bosnia and Herzegovina (79 percent), followed by FYR Macedonia with 77 percent. In Kosovo, 82 percent of respondents said that assaults and harassment are common. LGBTI people are least visible in Kosovo, where only 2 percent of respondents said that it is common for same-sex partners to hold hands in public or for public figures to be open about being LGBTI. It is also uncommon for same-sex partners to hold hands in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia (4 percent and 5 percent, respectively). LGBTI people are most visible in Montenegro, where 14 percent of respondents said it is common for same-sex partners to hold hands in public, and 17 percent thought that public figures are generally open about being LGBTI (table 3.1.1.1). People in Bosnia and Herzegovina and FYR Macedonia were least likely to perceive measures to promote respect for the human rights of LGBTI people to be common. Only 13 percent of respondents in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 11 percent in FYR Macedonia said that positive measures to promote respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are common. Even fewer respondents, only 8 percent in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 7 percent in FYR Macedonia, said that measures to promote the human rights of transgender people are common, and in both countries, 30 very few respondents (7 percent and 6 percent, respectively) said the same about measures to promote the human rights of intersex people. On the other hand, in Montenegro and Slovenia, measures to promote the human rights of LGBTI people were perceived as common. Over one-third (36 percent) of respondents perceived such measures to be common for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, while 27 percent and 23 percent, respectively, said the same about transgender and intersex persons (table 3.1.1.1). 3.2 LGBTI Perception of Acceptance Index31 An overall index of perception of the acceptance of LGBTI people confirms that the situation is quite negative across all countries in the region, ranging from very low to fairly low acceptance (figure 3.2.1). The situation is best in Slovenia, followed by Croatia; it is worst in Kosovo. Figure 3.2.1. Index of Perception of General Acceptance of LGBTI People 1=Very low acceptance; 2=Low acceptance; 3=High acceptance; 4=Very high acceptance 2 1.94 1.68 1.69 1.72 1.5 1.47 1.52 1.43 1 Kosovo Macedonia Bosnia and Albania Montenegro Croatia Slovenia Herzegovina Means of the three indicators of acceptance (How common are: Expression of intolerance in public; Expression of sexual orientation in public; Positive measures to promote human rights of LGBTI people) on the scale: 1. Very rare, 2. Fairly rare, 3. Fairly common, and 4. Very common Base: Those who evaluated all questions on the scale from 1 to 4; Don’t know answers excluded (N=412); 85% of the sample (N=1980). 3.2.1 Differences between LGBTI groups and across demographic characteristics There are very few differences in perceptions across LGBTI subgroups. Respondents see the situation as equally negative regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. The only material differences are:  Bisexual men perceived the situation regarding assaults against LGBTI people as slightly less negative (58 percent reported it as common compared to the regional average of 67 percent).  Intersex people perceived the situation as somewhat less negative relative to regional averages for the visibility of LGBTI people. Several demographic variables were analyzed to assess their impact on perceptions. Systematic impacts were found for three demographic characteristics: belonging to another minority group (such as an ethnic or religious group), activism in the LGBTI movement, and sex assigned at birth. 31 The overall Perception of Acceptance Index was computed based on mean scores for each of the three groups of indicators, which was done to avoid the influence of a different number of items within each of the three. The item “heterosexual couples holdi ng hands in public” was omitted. Scores on the items related to open expression of intolerance were reversed, so that higher scores mean less intolerance. 31 LGBTI people who belong to at least one other minority group viewed the situation as even more negative than those who do not belong to any other minority group. They were more likely to report that expressions of intolerance are common and less likely to say the same about positive measures (figure 3.2.1.1). Figure 3.2.1.1. Indices of Acceptance, by singular or multiple minority group membership (%) Not member of other minority groups Member of at least one more minority group 88 94 90 84 26 9 7 20 16 13 Jokes that might be Expressions of hatred Positive measures to Positive measures to Positive measures to offensive about LGBTI and aversion toward promote respect for promote respect for promote respect for people LGBTI the human rights of the human rights of the human rights of lesbian, gay, or transgender people intersex people bisexual people Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=25 to N=146). People involved in LGBTI movements were more likely to report expressions of intolerance but were more positive about measures to promote rights (figure 3.2.1.2). Figure 3.2.1.2. Indices of Acceptance, by LGBTI movement involvment (%) Not involved in LGBTI movement Involved in LGBTI movement 88 93 90 84 76 66 24 30 Jokes about LGBTI people Expressions of hatred and Offensive language about Positive measures to that might be offensive aversion toward LGBTI LGBTI by politicians promote respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, or bisexual people Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=25 to N=146). 32 Across all four surveyed indices, those assigned female sex at birth reported higher levels of intolerance in their respective countries (figure 3.2.1.3). Figure 3.2.1.3: Indices of Acceptance, by sex assigned at birth (%) PERCENTAGE OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON Men (assigned at birth) Women (assigned at birh) 87 92 83 88 66 70 63 72 Jokes about LGBTI people Expressions of hatred and Offensive language about Assaults and harrasment that might be offensive aversion toward LGBTI LGBTI by politicians against LGBTI people Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=25 to N=146). 33 4. Discrimination Against and Harassment of LGBTI People32 “It isn't easy being part of [the] LGBT community…. [We] face discrimination everywhere and from everyone every day!” (Gay man, Albania) Discrimination33 and harassment34 can negatively affect physical and psychological well-being, as well as the ability to develop economic and social capital. The survey asked respondents about their perceptions of discrimination (Section 4.1). Additionally, the survey asked respondents about their personal experience with discrimination (Section 4.2) and if they had reported those experiences. Specific questions were asked about discrimination during schooling, in employment, and when accessing health care services. Respondents were also asked about harassment. CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS Ninety-two percent of respondents stated that discrimination based on their sexual orientation is either fairly common or very common. This is higher than what was reported in the FRA survey, where 75 percent of respondents perceived discrimination to be fairly or very widespread. More than 70 percent of respondents perceived discrimination based on gender expression and gender identity to be fairly or very common, lower than that reported in the FRA survey (84 percent). Perceived discrimination based on gender identity was worse for people who are members of at least one other more minority group (83 percent compared to 74 percent in the whole LGBTI population on a regional level). Belonging to at least one other minority group, as well as the perception of being of a sex other than the one assigned at birth, increased the probability of experiencing discrimination. Fifty-two percent of respondents reported personal experience with discrimination based on their sexual orientation in the past year. This is slightly higher than that reported in the FRA survey (47 percent). Eighty percent of transgender respondents reported a personal experience with discrimination based on gender identity and 75 percent reported this experience based on gender expression. These percentages are much higher than what was reported in the FRA survey (46 percent). Only 8 percent of respondents stated that they had made an official report following their most recent case of discrimination, slightly lower than the 10 percent who said this in the FRA survey. The most common reasons for not reporting included: skepticism that anything would happen or change pursuant to making the report (60 percent); a reluctance to reveal their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex (39 percent); fear of discrimination or ridicule (38 32 Prior to asking about attitudes and experience with discrimination, respondents were provided with the following explanation of discrimination: “By discrimination we mean when someb ody is treated less favorably than others because of a specific personal feature such as their age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, minority background, or for any other reason. For example, discrimination can occur when a woman is not given an equal opportunity to be promoted in her job in comparison with a man, although she is equally suitable and experienced. Discrimination also occurs when persons who are in an unequal position are being treated in the same (equal) way. For instance, persons with disabilities are in an unequal position in comparison to persons without disabilities. In other words, discrimination is unequal treatment of equals and equal treatment of unequals.“ 33 Discrimination: When a person is treated less favorably than others because of a specific personal feature, such as age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, minority background, or any other reason. 34 Harassment: Unwanted and disturbing behavior, such as name calling or ridiculing, that does not involve actual violence or the threat of violence. 34 percent); and pessimism about the worth of reporting since discrimination happens routinely (34 percent). Three out of five LGBTI people indicated that they had been harassed in the past five years. The transgender community was the most exposed to harassment. 4.1 Perceptions of discrimination There was a widespread perception that discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender expression, and gender identity is pervasive in the region. Discrimination on these grounds was perceived to be higher than other characteristics, such as ethnicity, religion, and age (figure 4.1.1). Perceptions of discrimination are important because they impact the lives of LGBTI people in a number of ways, for instance, with regard to mental health, decisions about how or whether to seek employment, and family and other relationships. Figure 4.1.1. Perceptions of Discrimination Based on Various Characteristics (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON - REGIONAL AVERAGE Sexual orientation 92 Gender expression 77 Gender identity 74 Ethnic origin 72 Sex 62 Origin within the country 61 Level of income 60 Disability 54 Religion 53 Age 38 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Please specify how often the people are discriminated based upon the following characteristics in the country where you live. Is discrimination based on these characteristics very rare, fairly rare, fairly common, or very common? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=37 to N=237). Respondents in Slovenia were the least likely to report discrimination based on sexual orientation and respondents in Bosnia and Herzegovina the most likely. Transgender people were the most likely to perceive discrimination, and intersex the least likely (figure 4.1.2). 35 Figure 4.1.2. Perceived Level of Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation, by country and LGBTI group (%) - PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON REGIONAL AVERAGE 92 Bosnia and Herzegovina 95 Albania 94 Kosovo 94 FYR Macedonia 94 Croatia 93 Montenegro 92 Slovenia 79 Lesbian 95 Bisexual female 94 Gay 90 Bisexual male 89 Transgender* 96 Intersex** 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Please specify how often the people are discriminated based upon the following characteristics in the country where you live. Is discrimination based on sexual orientation very rare, fairly rare, fairly common, or very common? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses (N=37). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); Don't know responses (N=0). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); Don't know responses (N=5). LGBTI people in the region believed discrimination to be most common against gays (92 percent) and transgender people (90 percent), followed by discrimination against lesbians (78 percent), intersex people (67 percent), and bisexual people (66 percent) (figure 4.1.3). Figure 4.1.3. Perception of Discrimination against Different LGBTI Groups (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON - REGIONAL AVERAGE 92 Gay 90 Transgender 78 Lesbian 67 Intersex 66 Bisexual 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: In your opinion, in the country where you live, how common is discrimination because a person is… (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex). Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=28 to N=567). 36 Across the region, Slovenia had the lowest level of perceived discrimination, yet even there, LGBTI people believed discrimination against them to be “fairly common” (figure 4.1.4).35 The rates of perceived discrimination were significantly higher in the other countries surveyed, with Kosovo faring the worst. Figure 4.1.4. How Common is Discrimination Because a Person is LGBTI? HIGHER SCORES INDICATE MORE DISCRIMINATION 1=Very rare; 2=Fairly rare; 3=Fairly common; 4=Very common 4 3.47 3.47 3.49 3.52 3.38 3.29 3 2.93 2 1 Slovenia Croatia Montenegro FYR Bosnia and Albania Kosovo Macedonia Herzegovina Question: In your opinion, in the country where you live, how common is discrimination because a person is… (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex). Base: 99% of the sample (N=2305); Don’t know answers excluded (N=87). 4.2 Personal experiences of discrimination Almost half of the respondents reported that they had been discriminated against or harassed in the past 12 months because of their identity (figure 4.2.1). The percentage was considerably higher (80 percent) for transgender people as a separate group. The percentage of intersex people, gays, and lesbians who had faced discrimination and harassment was relatively high at 56, 52, and 51 percent, respectively. 35 Average of the five items referring to discrimination because a person is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex. 37 Figure 4.2.1. Experienced Discrimination or Harassment in the Past 12 Months, Because of Being LGBTI, by LGBTI group (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER YES - REGIONAL AVERAGE REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 Transgender people* 80 Intersex people** 56 Gays 52 Lesbians 51 Bisexual women 45 Bisexual men 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Question: In the past 12 months, in the country where you live, have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed because of being perceived as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/intersex? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=43 to N=89). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); Don't know responses (N=1). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); Don't know responses (N=6). Younger persons, students, and people with lower incomes reported higher rates of discrimination because of their sexual orientation (figure 4.2.2). Unemployed LGBTI people, and those with low incomes, as well as those affiliated with at least one additional minority group were also more exposed to discrimination. Additionally, LGBTI people who express a gender identity that is different from the sex assigned to them at birth experienced significantly higher rates of discrimination. Figure 4.2.2. Discriminated against or Harassed on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation in the Past 12 Months, by age group, income, and employment status (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE 52 18-25 59 26-35 46 36-45 49 45+ 35 Less than €400 60 €400-600 52 €600-1,000 49 More than €1,000 47 Student 61 Unemployed or otherwise not working 55 In paid work 45 0 20 40 60 Question: In the past 12 months, in the country where you live, have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed on the basis of one or more of the following grounds...sexual orientation? Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses (N=135). 38 Discrimination against LGBTI people in everyday life LGBTI people experienced discrimination in many everyday interactions, with transgender people reporting a much higher rate of unequal treatment (figure 4.2.3). Figure 4.2.3. Transgender and LGBI Respondents Who Experienced Unequal Treatment at Least Once in the Past 6 Months Because of Being Perceived to be LGBTI (%) Transgender people LGBI people (excluding trans) You have been treated with less courtesy than other people 65 25 You have been treated with less respect than other people 60 27 You have received poorer services than others (e.g., in restaurants, shops) 35 13 People have acted as if they thought you were not smart 39 19 People have acted as if they were afraid of you 34 22 People have acted as if they thought you were dishonest 30 18 People have acted as if they were better than you 59 34 You have been followed around by people in public places, such as a shop 28 9 0 20 40 60 Question: In the past six months, in your day-to-day life, how often have any of the following things happened to you because you are or are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or intersex? Base: Transgender respondents (N=55); Don't know responses range (N=5 to N=10); and other LGBI respondents (N=2274); Don't know responses range (N=196 to N=244). 4.2.2 Circumstances in which LGBTI people experience discrimination The highest incidences of discrimination were experienced in public places, such as cafes, restaurants, bars, or nightclubs (27 percent). Discrimination at school or university was also quite common (23 percent), as was discrimination when using social media (21 percent) and at work or when looking for a job (both 20 percent). Discrimination when accessing banking or insurance services, or when presenting official documents that identify a person’s sex, was less common (6 percent and 9 percent, respectively) (figure 4.2.2.1). 39 Figure 4.2.2.1. Being Discriminated against in Various Situations Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 12 Months (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER YES - REGIONAL AVERAGE At a cafe, restaurant, bar, or nightclub 27 By school/university personnel. This could have happened to you as a student or as a parent 23 When using social media with your real name and information 21 At work 20 When looking for a job 20 When looking for a house or apartment to rent or buy (by people working in a public or private housing agency, by a… 19 By health care personnel (e.g., a receptionist, nurse, or doctor) 15 By social service personnel 14 When using public transportation 13 At a sport or fitness club 11 At a shop 11 When showing your ID or any official document that identifies your sex 9 In a bank or insurance company (by bank or company personnel) 6 0 20 Question: During the past 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against in any of the following situations because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex, as you described yourself above. Base: Those respondents who had experience with various situations in the past 12 months, range (N=634 to N=2295); Don't know responses range (N=44 to N=107). Again, in almost all the situations mentioned, unemployed LGBTI people or those with lower incomes, as well as those belonging to at least one other minority group, personally felt discriminated against much more often than the regional average. In addition, LGBTI people who are perceived by others to be at odds with the sex assigned to them at birth were exposed to higher levels of discrimination, in particular, males who are perceived as feminine. Overall, the lowest levels of discrimination were experienced in Croatia and the highest in Montenegro, Kosovo, and Albania. When the experiences reported by members of different LGBTI groups are compared, transgender people were by far the most vulnerable to discrimination (53 percent), followed by intersex people. Bisexual females reported the lowest number of incidents of discrimination. 40 4.3 Discrimination in the workplace “I was told openly not to inform anyone at work about my sex[ual] orientation in order not to get fired.” (Gay man, Croatia) Figure 4.3.1. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 5 Years (%) Hidden or disguised your sexual orientation and/or gender 64 identity and/or being intersex at work Heard or seen negative comments or conduct against your 41 colleague because she/he is perceived to be LGBTI Experienced a general negative attitude at work against 35 people because they are LGBTI 24 Been open at work about being LGBTI Experienced unequal treatment with respect to employment 16 conditions or benefits (e.g., leave, pension, etc.) because of… Experienced negative comments or conduct at work because 14 of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or… 0 20 40 60 Question: How often during your employment in the past 5 years, have you... Base: Those respondents who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=1749); Does not apply to me responses range (N=27 to N=200). Two-thirds (64 percent) of LGBTI people reported that in the past five years, they have often or always hidden their SOGI identity at work. Forty-one percent of LGBTI people had witnessed negative attitudes, comments, and conduct toward LGBTI colleagues, 14 percent had personally experienced such comments or conduct, and 16 percent had experienced unequal treatment with respect to employment conditions or benefits (figure 4.3.1). Transgender people, men perceived as feminine, and lesbians were discriminated against more severely at work. These groups reported the highest rates of negative comments, conduct, and discrimination. LGBTI people with low incomes experienced higher levels of discrimination at work. The situation is better in Slovenia, where a significantly higher percentage of LGBTI people are open about their gender identity or sexual orientation or being intersex at work. Very few LGBTI people from Slovenia had experienced negative comments, conduct, or attitudes at work. Similarly, few reported discrimination regarding benefits and employment conditions (table 4.3.1). LGBTI people in Croatia also reported fewer negative comments or conduct against their LGBTI colleagues compared to the regional average, though a smaller percentage of respondents are open about their gender identity, sexual orientation, or intersex status at work. Bosnia and Herzegovina stands out with high rates of respondents who reported negative attitudes toward LGBTI people at work. The situation in Kosovo is also particularly bad, as discrimination in the workplace was reportedly widespread. 41 Table 4.3.1. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 5 Years (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR Hidden or disguised your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex at 64 67 70 63 71 67 63 47 work Heard or seen negative comments or conduct against your colleague because she/he is 41 48 47 35 57 46 45 19 perceived to be LGBTI Experienced a general negative attitude at work 35 38 43 34 38 42 45 15 against people because they are LGBTI Been open at work about being LGBTI 24 26 17 18 17 23 18 47 Experienced unequal treatment with respect to employment conditions or benefits (e.g., leave, 16 15 21 15 25 15 18 5 pension, etc.) because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex Experienced negative comments or conduct at work because of your sexual orientation and/or 14 19 13 12 24 9 16 10 gender identity and/or being intersex N 1749 263 341 492 146 198 67 244 Question: How often during your employment in the past 5 years, have you... Base: Those respondents who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=1749); Does not apply to me responses range (N=27 to N=200). Among the different LGBTI groups, bisexual men were less open about their sexual orientation in the workplace compared to the regional average, while transgender people were more open. However, transgender people reported higher rates of negative comments and behavior (figure 4.3.3). Lesbians were also vulnerable in the workplace, revealing high rates of negative attitudes and conduct as well as discrimination against them at work. 42 Table 4.3.2. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 5 Years (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS Bisexual men Transgender Intersex** Regional Bisexual average Lesbian women Gay * Hidden or disguised your sexual orientation and/or 64 61 63 61 76 51 64 gender identity and/or being intersex at work Experienced a general negative attitude at work 35 43 32 35 38 30 20 against people because they are LGBTI Been open at work about being LGBTI 24 28 25 24 11 46 13 Experienced unequal treatment with respect to employment conditions or benefits (e.g., leave, 16 20 14 11 17 27 23 pension, etc.) because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex Experienced negative comments or conduct at work because of your sexual orientation and/or gender 14 18 12 11 12 30 17 identity and/or being intersex N 1749 349 629 392 272 43 65 Question: How often during your employment in the past 5 years, have you... Base: Those respondents who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=1749); Does not apply to me responses range (N=27 to N=200). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=43); Does not apply to me responses range (N=0 to N=3). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=65); Does not apply to me responses range (N=2 to N=7). 4.3.1 Comparing countries and LGBTI groups on overall workplace discrimination Transgender people reported the highest rate of discrimination in the workplace in the past 12 months (38 percent), well above the figure for Kosovo (27 percent), the country with the highest rate overall, and the regional average (20 percent) (figure 4.3.1.1). 43 Figure 4.3.1.1. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 12 Months, by country and by LGBTI group (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE 20 Kosovo 27 Albania 24 Montenegro 24 Bosnia and Herzegovina 21 FYR Macedonia 20 Croatia 17 Slovenia 15 Transgender* 38 Intersex** 24 Lesbian 23 Gay 20 Bisexual man 19 Bisexual woman 16 0 20 40 Question: During the past 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against at work because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex, as you described yourself above. Base: Those respondents who worked/were employed in the past 12 months (N=1545); Don't know responses (N=92). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who worked/were employed in the past 12 months (N=39); Don't know resposnes (N=1). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who worked/were employed in the past 12 months (N=56); Don't know responses (N=2). Figure 4.3.1.2. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 5 Years, homogenous subsets of the countries HIGHER SCORES INDICATE GREATER PRESENCE OF DISCRIMINATION 1=Never 4=Always 2 2.42 2.43 2.45 2.55 2.29 2.37 1.91 1 Slovenia Croatia Albania Macedonia Montenegro Bosnia and Kosovo Herzegovina Question: How often during your employment in the past 5 years, have you... Base: Those respondents who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=1749); Does not apply to me responses range (N=27 to N=200). 44 A composite measure of discrimination over the past five years shows that discrimination against LGBTI people in the workplace had occurred frequently in Kosovo and less often in Slovenia (figure 4.3.1.2).36 4.4 Discrimination in the education system “The hardest period of my life was secondary school, when children used to tease me that I am gay, although they didn't know that. The worst incident happened in a bus when I was spat at and physically attacked.” (Gay man, Croatia) Discrimination in the education system is even worse than in the workplace. Although 64 percent of LGBTI respondents reported that they hide their identity at work, as many as 76 percent hide it at school (figure 4.4.1), where only 11 percent of respondents said that they openly talk about their sexual orientation or gender identity or being intersex. Additionally, although 41 percent of LGBTI people had heard or witnessed negative comments or behavior against LGBTI people by colleagues, 70 percent had seen this from schoolmates or peers. Moreover, 44 percent of respondents had experienced negative comments or conduct from teachers. Finally, 14 percent of respondents had experienced negative conduct in the workplace, while 35 percent had experienced this at school. Figure 4.4.1. Discrimination during Schooling before Age 18 Because of Being LGBTI (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS - REGIONAL AVERAGE Hide or disguise your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex at school 76 Hear or see negative comments or conduct against your schoolmate/peer because she/he was perceived to be LGBTI 70 Hear or see negative comments or conduct because a teacher was perceived to be LGBTI 44 Experience negative comments or conduct at school because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or… 35 Openly talk at school about your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex 11 0 20 40 60 80 Question: How often during your schooling before the age of 18, did you… Base: Total sample (N=2329); Does not apply to me responses range (N=74 to N=139) Male respondents rarely talked openly at school about being LGBTI but nonetheless were often on the receiving end of negative comments or conduct compared to females. The highest reported rate of negative conduct toward LGBTI people in the school system was among males who are perceived as feminine. This mirrors the general status quo, as males who are perceived to be feminine experienced much higher levels of discrimination than other groups within the LGBTI community. Again, Slovenia emerged as the best performer in the region, with lower rates of reported negative comments or conduct toward LGBTI people themselves or their schoolmates, teachers, or peers because of being perceived as LGBTI compared to other countries (table 4.4.1). On the other hand, compared to the regional average, LGBTI people in Kosovo were more reluctant to openly talk about their sexual orientation, gender identity, or being intersex at school. 36One item whose orientation was not in accordance with the orientation of the other items was re-oriented (the item, “Been open at work about your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex, as you described yourself above”). 45 Table 4.4.1. Discrimination during School before Age 18 Because of Being LGBTI, by country (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR Hear or see negative comments or conduct against your schoolmate/peer because she/he 70 69 75 69 75 76 69 55 was perceived to be LGBTI Hear or see negative comments or conduct 44 42 50 42 50 48 52 28 because a teacher was perceived to be LGBTI Experience negative comments or conduct at school because of your sexual orientation and/or 35 36 39 36 39 32 31 26 gender identity and/or being intersex Openly talk at school about your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being 11 12 13 9 6 10 9 14 intersex N 2329 394 487 590 200 282 85 289 Question: How often during your schooling before the age of 18, did you… Base: Total sample (N=2329); Does not apply to me responses range (N=74 to N=139). Among different groups of LGBTI people, gays reported that they hide their sexual orientation the most and also experienced higher rates of negative comments and conduct at school. Bisexual women did not face the same level of discrimination; in fact, across all the groups of LGBTI people, they experienced the lowest level of negative comments and conduct at school and do not hide their sexual orientation as much as the others (table 4.4.2). Transgender people reportedly talk openly at school about their identity but also experienced higher rates of negative behavior. Table 4.4.2. Discrimination during School before Age 18 Because of Being LGBT, by LGBTI group (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS Bisexual men Transgender Intersex** Regional Bisexual average Lesbian women Gay * Hide or disguise your sexual orientation and/or gender 76 71 86 68 81 70 56 identity and/or being intersex at school Experience negative comments or conduct at school because of your sexual orientation and/or gender 35 27 49 20 33 53 42 identity and/or being intersex Openly talk at school about your sexual orientation 11 13 8 14 8 22 10 and/or gender identity and/or being intersex N 2329 457 812 575 341 55 89 Question: How often during your schooling before the age of 18, did you… Base: Total sample (N=2329); Does not apply to me ranges (N=74 to N=139). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); Does not apply to me responses range (N=4 to N=7). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); Does not apply to me responses range (N=3 to N=6). 46 4.4.1 Comparing countries and LGBTI subgroups on discrimination in education Transgender people reported the highest rate of discrimination in education in the past 12 months (34 percent), above the rate for Bosnia and Herzegovina (30 percent), where it was most prevalent overall, and the regional average (23 percent). Figure 4.4.1.1. Discrimination by School or University Personnel Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 12 Months, by country and LGBTI group (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE 23 Bosnia and Herzegovina 30 Kosovo 28 Albania 24 FYR Macedonia 24 Montenegro 24 Slovenia 16 Croatia 14 Transgender* 34 Intersex** 31 Lesbian 27 Gay 25 Bisexual woman 21 Bisexual man 13 0 20 Question: During the past 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against by school/university personnel because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex, as you described yourself above. Base: Those respondents who attended school/university themselves or their child/children was/were in school/at university in the past 12 months (N=1303); Don't know responses (N=67). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who attended school/university themselves or their child/children was/were in school/at university in the past 12 months (N=31); Don't know responses (N=0). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who attended school/university themselves or their child/children was/were in school/at university in the past 12 months (N=53); Don't know responses (N=3). As with the workplace climate, the composite measure of the school climate shows that the situation is best in Slovenia and worst in Kosovo (figure 4.4.1.2).37 Figure 4.4.1.2. Discrimination DURING SCHOOLING before Age 18 Because of Being LGBTI HIGHER SCORES INDICATE GREATER PRESENCE OF DISCRIMINATION 4 1=Never 4=Always 3 2 2.81 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.97 3.02 2.63 1 Slovenia Albania Croatia Montenegro Bosnia and FYR Kosovo Herzegovina Macedonia 37One item whose orientation was not in accordance with the orientation of other items was re-oriented (the item, “Openly talk at school about your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex”). 47 4.5 Discrimination in the health care system “I don't feel safe in my country because of my sexual orientation. I can't get the necessary health or psycho-social services… More awareness and special care for the gay persons infected by HIV/AIDS is needed, because there is nothing at the moment.” (Gay man, Albania) Fewer LGBTI people had experienced discrimination in the health care system than in the workplace or at school. Overall, 39 percent of respondents had experienced discrimination when using or attempting to access health care services (figure 4.5.1). Of particular concern is the fact that one-tenth of respondents had foregone medical treatment because of fear of discrimination or intolerant reactions (12 percent). The most common experiences were inappropriate curiosity (17 percent) and difficulty searching for and finding an LGBTI-friendly health practitioner where they live (16 percent). Within the different groups of LGBTI people, the survey showed that transgender and intersex persons were the most likely to experience difficulty in finding an LGBTI-friendly health practitioner and also more likely to forego treatment for fear of discrimination. Transgender people often faced more inappropriate curiosity than other groups within the LGBTI community. Figure 4.5.1. Discrimination When Using or Trying to Access Health Care Services Because of Being LGBTI - REGIONAL AVERAGE (%) Inappropriate curiosity 17 Difficulty looking for or finding an LGBTI-friendly health practitioner in your area 16 Foregoing treatment for fear of discrimination or intolerant reactions 12 Receiving unequal treatment when dealing with medical staff 8 Specific needs ignored (not taken into account) 7 Having to change general practitioners or other specialists due to 5 their negative reaction Difficulty in gaining access to health care 4 Pressure or being forced to undergo any medical or psychological test 4 I have never accessed health care services 5 None of the above 61 0 20 40 60 Question: Have you ever experienced any of the following situations when using or trying to access health care services because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. A country-by-country analysis demonstrates that discrimination in health care was less prevalent in Slovenia relative to the other countries in the region (table 4.5.1). On the other hand, the situations in Albania and Kosovo were not as favorable, with greater percentages of respondents reporting that discrimination exists in various respects. 48 Table 4.5.1. Discrimination When Using or Trying to Access Health Care Services Because of Being LGBTI, by country (%) Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR Difficulty looking for or finding an LGBTI-friendly 16 21 14 12 20 18 14 14 health practitioner in your area Foregoing treatment for fear of discrimination or 12 10 14 16 9 12 13 5 intolerant reactions Receiving unequal treatment when dealing with 8 6 5 6 6 21 7 6 medical staff Specific needs ignored (not taken into account) 7 5 7 5 13 5 11 7 I have never accessed health care services 5 13 3 3 12 3 6 1 Difficulty in gaining access to health care 4 7 2 3 8 4 7 1 Pressure or being forced to undergo any medical 4 6 3 3 3 5 4 3 or psychological test None of the above 61 53 63 66 54 51 62 71 N 2329 394 487 590 200 282 85 289 Question: Have you ever experienced any of the following situations when using or trying to access health care services because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. There are clear variations between different groups of LGBTI people in their experiences with the health care system (table 4.5.2). Both transgender and intersex respondents had difficulty finding an LGBTI-friendly health practitioner—more than 40 percent compared to 16 percent of LGBTI people overall. Transgender and intersex respondents also reported higher rates of foregoing treatment because of fear of discrimination: 38 percent of transgender respondents and 26 percent of intersex respondents compared to 12 percent overall. Transgender people often faced inappropriate curiosity as well; 35 percent reported this compared to 17 percent overall. On the other hand, bisexual women reported lower levels of discrimination in health care. 49 Table 4.5.2. Discrimination When Using or Trying to Access Health Care Services Because of Being LGBTI, by LGBTI group (%) Bisexual men Transgender Intersex** Regional Bisexual average Lesbian women Gay * Inappropriate curiosity 17 20 18 12 16 35 19 Difficulty looking for or finding an LGBTI-friendly 16 16 16 10 14 42 41 health practitioner in your area Foregoing treatment for fear of discrimination or 12 10 13 7 14 38 26 intolerant reactions Having to change general practitioners or other 5 5 5 3 4 20 10 specialists due to their negative reaction Difficulty in gaining access to health care 4 4 5 1 3 16 14 Pressure or being forced to undergo any medical or 4 3 6 2 2 7 3 psychological test None of the above 61 62 60 68 63 24 35 N 2329 457 812 575 341 55 89 Question: Have you ever experienced any of the following situations when using or trying to access health care services because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). 4.5.2 Opinion about sex altering surgery on intersex infants38 Opinions among intersex people were divided on the subject of performing sex-altering surgeries on intersex infants. Fifty-two percent said they should not be performed, while 48 percent said they should (figure 4.5.2.1). Figure 4.5.2.1. Opinions about Sex-Altering Surgery on Intersex Infants (%) Sex-altering surgery Sex-altering surgery should be performed on should not be performed intersex infants on intersex infants 52 48 Question: Thinking about sex-altering surgery on intersex infants, which comes closer to your opinion? Base: Intersex respondents (N=89); no missing or refused responses. 38 In addition to their views on sex-altering surgery, respondents were asked whether they personally had experienced such surgery. Only one person answered “yes.” This result is considered unreliable, and it is possible that respondents did not fully understand the question. 50 4.5.3. Seeking help from mental or physical health facilities for being intersex Sixteen percent of intersex respondents (14 intersex respondents) had sought help from mental or physical health facilities for being intersex (figure 4.5.3.1). Figure 4.5.3.1. Seeking Help from Mental or Physical Health Services for Being Intersex (%) Don`t know/ Refuse 6 Yes 16 I do not want/ need help… No 54 Question: Have you ever sought help from mental or physical health services for being intersex/having a variation of sex characteristics you were born with? Base: Intersex respondents (N=89). All intersex persons who had sought health care visited a psychologist or psychiatrist (14 intersex respondents), while three also visited a general medical practitioner. Two had visited a surgeon, and one an endocrinologist. Intersex people were pleased with the services provided and found health professionals informative and helpful, or in some cases, very willing to help but unable to offer everything they needed. The most common reasons why intersex people did not seek health care were fear and the absence of such help in their country. Figure 4.5.3.2. Reasons for Not Seeking Help from Mental or Physical Health Services for Being Intersex First answer All answers I do not dare to 20 38 It is not available in the country where I live 35 36 I do not have confidence in the services provided 4 27 I do not know where to go 1 26 It is not covered by my country's public health insurance 10 20 I am afraid of prejudice from the care providers 2 15 It is too complicated in terms of bureaucracy 15 I cannot afford it due to financial reasons 2 13 It takes too much time (including waiting lists) 4 11 I have had previous bad experiences with care providers 1 2 Other 23 Question: Why not? 0 20 40 Base: Intersex respondents who didn't seek help (N=48); no missing or refused responses. 51 Life of Intersex People Findings from the survey point to the fact that there are marked differences in the lives and experiences of people within the LGBTI population and each subgroup faces unique challenges and difficulties. Policies and legal frameworks are often not disaggregated and do not take into account the diverse lived realities and varied experiences of each LGBTI subgroup with regard to discrimination, exclusion, harassment, and violence. Although this is true across the board, it is particularly the case for intersex and transgender people, who are often the most invisible part of the LGBTI acronym but who nevertheless, as these findings reveal, face more serious challenges than lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although this is the first survey to collect regional data on intersex people, the sample is quite small and as such does not allow for a disaggregated analysis (by country, for example). Given this and the fact that they are often missed in research, this box focusses on the experiences and challenges faced by intersex people as determined by the survey. Openness about being intersex o Three out of four intersex respondents said that they are not open about their intersex identity. Discrimination o More than half of intersex people have personally experienced discrimination. Transgender people were the only other subgroup within the LGBTI population who experienced more discrimination than intersex people. o Compared to the regional average, twice as many intersex people were discriminated against while looking for a job, by health care and social service personnel, at sports clubs, or when using public transportation. Discrimination against intersex people in the labor market, especially in seeking employment, was higher even than discrimination against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals on the grounds of sexual orientation. According to the survey, roughly 40 percent of intersex job seekers had encountered discrimination. o Regarding discrimination in the health care system, both intersex and transgender people are in a very difficult position, reporting that they struggle to find an LGBTI-friendly health practitioner. They also avoid medical treatment out of fear of discrimination. Less than one-fifth of intersex people have sought help from mental or physical health facilities for being intersex. Of the few who have, the majority were satisfied with the services provided, stating that health professionals were informative and helpful. The main reasons for not seeking help from mental or physical health facilities were: o It was not available in the country they live in (or was not covered by the country’s public health insurance). o They were afraid to seek help. o They were wary of having to face prejudice and discrimination from health care providers or did not have confidence in the services that would be provided. o Opinions were divided on the subject of whether intersex infants should undergo sex-altering surgery: half of the intersex people stated that it should be performed, and the other half disagreed. 52 o Compared to the regional average, intersex people often did not report incidents of discrimination because of fear of intimidation by perpetrators and because they were too emotionally upset. Harassment o According to the survey, Intersex people, together with lesbians and bisexual women, were one of the least harassed LGBTI groups. o As with discrimination, intersex people were unlikely to report incidents of harassment to the police due to the emotional distress involved. Intersex respondents tended to deal with these matters on their own. Five ways to improve the lives of intersex people “It would have been good if there was financial support from the state for gender changing surgeries.” (Intersex, FYR Macedonia) o Conduct widespread awareness-raising campaigns about where intersex people can get support and assistance. o Encourage and support the establishment of peer support groups. o Introduce and continuously communicate measures that promote and protect the rights of intersex people. o Take specific actions to respond to the challenges that intersex people face that prevent them from having a good quality of life. o Raise public awareness about the existence of intersex people and encourage national authorities to actively promote their rights. 4.6 Reporting discrimination to authorities Although every second LGBTI respondent had been discriminated against in the past year, only 8 percent reported the discriminatory incident to the authorities (figure 4.6.1). This was consistent across countries in the region and across LGBTI groups. The most common place to report discrimination was to the police (36 percent), followed by an LGBTI organization (28 percent). 53 Figure 4.6.1. Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination and the Place of Reporting REGIONAL AVERAGE (%) Police 36 Yes No Don't know LGBTI organization 28 4 8 Nongovernmental organization 20 State or national institution (such as an equality body) 8 Hospital or other medical service 6 89 General victim support organization 3 Other organization 22 Questions: Thinking about the most recent incident, did you or anyone else report it anywhere? Where did you or anyone else report it? Base 1: Those respondents who had at least one experience of discrimination in the past 12 months; 49% of the sample (N=1130); no missing or refused responses. Base 2: Those respondents who reported the most recent incident of discrimination; 4% of the sample, multiple answers, (N=90); Don’t know responses (N=14). The most common reasons for not reporting incidents of discrimination were (1) a strong belief that nothing would happen or change pursuant to the report (60 percent), (2) a reluctance to reveal their sexual orientation or gender identity or that they are intersex (39 percent), and (3) fear that they would be subjected to further discrimination or ridicule (38 percent) (figure 4.6.2). Figure 4.6.2. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE Nothing would happen or change 60 Did not want to reveal my sexual orientation and/or gender… 39 Fear of discrimination or ridicule 38 Not worth reporting it - it happens all the time 34 Concerned that the incident would not have been taken… 33 I did not think people would understand what I was talking… 30 Didn't know how or where to report 17 Fear of intimidation by perpetrators 16 Too much trouble, no time 16 Because I was too emotionally upset to report it 13 Dealt with the problem myself/with help from family or friends 9 Other reason(s) 12 0 20 40 60 Question: Why was it not reported? Base: Those respondents who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination; 43% of the sample, multiple answers, 54 In Kosovo, a significantly higher percentage of LGBTI people were pessimistic that action would be taken or that change would occur pursuant to reporting an incident of discrimination (table 4.6.1). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, LGBTI people said that they prefer to remain silent about incidents of discrimination rather than reveal their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex. In Croatia, LGBTI people did not think that incidents of discrimination were worth reporting since discrimination happens all the time. LGBTI people in FYR Macedonia were not convinced that the people to whom the reports were made understand the issue. In Slovenia, respondents were more likely to deal with the incident themselves or with the help of family and friends. Table 4.6.1. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination, by country (%) PERCENTAGE OF YES ANSWERS Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR Nothing would happen or change 60 42 67 62 78 58 54 55 Did not want to reveal my sexual orientation and/or gender identity 39 30 48 31 52 46 33 33 and/or being intersex Fear of discrimination or ridicule 38 40 41 31 62 40 35 22 Not worth reporting it - it happens all the 34 29 27 44 30 36 29 44 time Concerned that the incident would not 33 24 38 29 54 33 28 28 have been taken seriously I did not think people would understand 30 22 26 29 36 43 25 30 what I was talking about Too much trouble, no time 16 10 12 25 13 14 18 18 Dealt with the problem myself/with help 9 9 7 11 6 9 5 15 from family or friends N 1000 172 233 214 100 130 36 115 Question: Why was it not reported? Base: Those respondents who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination; 43% of the sample, multiple answers, (N=1000); no missing or refused responses. Among different LGBTI subgroups, intersex people were more likely to forego reporting due to fear of intimidation by perpetrators but also because they were too emotionally upset (table 4.6.2). Bisexual women were hindered from reporting incidents of discrimination because of not knowing where to report, while bisexual men did not report because of a reluctance to reveal their sexual orientation. 55 Table 4.6.2: Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination, by LGBTI group (%) PERCENTAGE OF YES ANSWERS Bisexual men Transgender Intersex** Regional Bisexual average Lesbian women Gay * Did not want to reveal my sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or 39 35 40 35 59 29 38 being intersex Fear of discrimination or ridicule 38 31 44 29 49 39 49 Didn’t know how or where to report 17 14 17 24 12 4 16 Fear of intimidation by perpetrators 16 10 19 12 23 17 36 Because I was too emotionally upset to 13 14 15 10 8 7 26 report it N 1000 211 354 239 106 44 48 Question: Why was it not reported? Base: Those respondents who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination; 43% of the sample, multiple answers, (N=1000); no missing or refused responses. * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination (N=44). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination (N=48). For almost half of the people who did report the incident, nothing happened (figure 4.6.3). Figure 4.6.3. What Happened as a Result of Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE Nothing happened 47 A report was filed, but no disciplinary action at the end 13 Disciplinary action 12 A report was filed, but no disciplinary action yet 11 Don't know 17 0 20 40 Question: And what happened as a result of reporting the incident? Base: Those respondents who reported the most recent incident of discrimination; 4% of the sample, (N=90); no missing or refused responses. 56 4.7 Harassment Three out of five LGBTI people (62 percent) had personally been harassed in the past five years. LGBTI people in Kosovo reported the highest rate (73 percent) of harassment. The transgender community fared the worst in this regard, with 90 percent of transgender people reporting harassment in the past five years. Figure 4.7.1. Experiences of Harassment by Someone or a Group for Any Reason in a Way that Was Really Annoying, Offendensive, or Upsetting, by country and LGBTI group (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE 62 Kosovo 73 Bosnia and Herzegovina 68 FYR Macedonia 63 Montenegro 61 Slovenia 60 Croatia 56 Albania 57 Transgender* 90 Intersex** 66 Gay 64 Bisexual female 62 Lesbian 59 Bisexual male 54 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: In the past 5 years, have you been: personally harassed by someone or a group for any reason in a way that really annoyed, offended, or upset you? Either at work, home, on the street, on public transport, in a shop, in an office, or on the internet? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). 4.7.1 Profile of LGBTI victims of harassment LGBTI people in the following four categories were most exposed to harassment (figure 4.7.1.1):  People who are involved in LGBTI movements (70 percent) compared to those who are not (60 percent)  LGBTI people whose perceived gender differs from their own (75 percent), in particular, men who are perceived as feminine (79 percent) compared to those whose perceived gender does not differ from their own (60 percent)  LGBTI people who are members of at least one other minority group (religious or ethnic, etc.) (78 percent) compared to those who are not (58 percent)  Younger people (aged 18–25) (67 percent) compared to older people 57 Figure 4.7.1.1. Characteristics of those Experiencing Harassment (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE 62 Involved in the LGBTI movement 70 Not involved in the LGBTI movement 60 Member of at least one more minority group 78 Not a member of other minority groups 58 Perceived by others in discordance with sex assigned at birth 75 Perceived by others in accordance with sex assigned at birth 60 18-25 67 26-35 57 36-45 58 45+ 47 0 20 40 60 Question: In the past 5 years, have you been: personally harassed by someone or a group for any reason in a way that really annoyed, offended, or upset you? Either at work, home, on the street, on public transport, in a shop, in an office, or on the internet? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. 4.7.2 Number of incidents of harassment in the past 12 months Forty percent of all LGBTI respondents had been harassed in the past 12 months, and four out of five (79 percent) of those were harassed more than once. On average, LGBTI people who had been harassed in the past year were harassed at least four times (4.13 times). There were no differences between countries on the average number of harassment incidents. Among LGBTI groups, three things stand out:  Lesbians, bisexual women, and intersex women were harassed the least, with fewer than four incidents of harassment on average in the past year (intersex – 3.68 times, lesbians – 3.74, and bisexual women – 3.95).  Men perceived as feminine and those very open about their sexual orientation were harassed frequently. Every second man perceived as feminine (57 percent) and three out of four LGBTI people who are very open about their sexual orientation had been harassed more than three times in the past 12 months.  Transgender people experienced much higher rates of harassment, with almost six incidents of harassment on average (5.59) in the past 12 months. 4.7.3 The most serious incident of harassment Almost three-quarters of LGBTI people in the region (72 percent) indicated that the most serious incident of harassment happened in person (figure 4.7.3.1). Nevertheless, the internet was the single most common site for harassment (figure 4.7.3.2). Kosovo (43 percent) and Albania (39 percent) had 58 high numbers of cases of harassment over the internet. LGBTI people living outside of the capital or other big cities (35 percent) and those who are not open about their sexual orientation (34 percent) also experienced relatively high levels of harassment on the internet. In contrast, more than four-fifths of males who are perceived as feminine (84 percent) experienced the most serious incident of harassment in person (face to face), and only 16 percent experienced their most serious incident on the internet. Figure 4.7.3.1. The Most Serious Incident of Harassment Occuring in Person (Face-to-Face) or on the Internet, by country, small city or rural location, outness, and perceived gender conformity (%) It happened in-person (face-to-face) It happened on the internet REGIONAL AVERAGE 72 28 Kosovo 57 43 Albania 61 39 Bosnia and Herzegovina 73 27 FYR Macedonia 73 27 Slovenia 78 22 Croatia 79 21 Montenegro 79 21 Small city or rural area 65 35 Not out about their sexual orientation 66 34 Male perceived as feminine 84 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Thinking about the MOST SERIOUS incident of harassment, did it happen live (face-to-face) or it was on the internet? Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388); no missing or refused resposnes. One in five LGBTI people (22 percent) experienced the most serious case of harassment on the internet, followed by public place such as streets, square, car parking lot, etc. (18 percent) (figure 4.7.3.2). Transgender people were almost twice as likely to be harassed in these kinds of public places (30 percent). On the other hand, bisexual women experienced their most serious case of harassment in their home (12 percent). 59 Figure 4.7.3.2. Location of the Most Serious Cases of Harassment of LGBTI People (%) On the internet 22 In a street, square, car parking lot, or other public… 18 At school, university 12 In a cafe, restaurant, pub, club 10 At my home 9 At the workplace 8 In public transport 3 In some other residential building, apartment 3 In a park, forest 2 At an LGBTI-specific venue or event 1 At medical practitioner/health care provider 1 Elsewhere indoors 2 Elsewhere outdoors 3 Other 5 0 20 Question: Where did it happen? Base: Those who experienced incidet of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388); no missing or refused responses. 4.7.4. Detailed view of the most serious cases of harassment The most serious forms of harassment were verbal in nature. Seventy-six percent of respondents had experienced name-calling, almost two-thirds (62 percent) experienced harassment in the form of ridicule (making jokes), and more than half were verbally insulted and humiliated (55 percent) and subjected to excessive or constant negative comments (52 percent) (table 4.7.4.1.). Table 4.7.4.1. The Most Serious Form of Harassment, by perceived gender conformity (multiple answers, %) Perceived by perceived as perceived as accordance assigned at masculine feminine others in Regional with sex average Female Male birth Name calling 76 73 78 76 Ridiculing (making jokes about you) 62 61 74 61 Excessive/constant negative comments 52 50 61 51 Bullying 29 29 54 27 Aggressive gestures (such as pointing) 29 30 47 28 Isolation from something or somebody; ignoring 17 19 27 16 Other verbal insult/abuse/humiliation 55 55 68 54 Other non-verbal insult, abuse, humiliation (such 23 23 43 22 as text or image) Other 7 8 6 6 N 1388 94 92 1202 Question: Thinking about the MOST SERIOUS incident of harassment, what happened to you? Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388). 60 4.7.4.2. Perpetrator(s) of the most serious cases of harassment experienced by LGBTI people In a little more than half of the harassment cases (51 percent), there was more than one perpetrator. Women were more likely to experience harassment by sole perpetrators. Figure 4.7.4.2.1. The Most Serious Form of Harassment whether Perpetrators Were Alone or in a Group, by LGBTI group (%) Alone More than one perpetrator Don`t know REGIONAL AVERAGE 39% 51% 10% Bisexual female 49% 43% 8% Lesbian 48% 44% 8% Bisexual male 32% 54% 14% Gay 31% 57% 12% Intersex** 40% 54% 7% Transgender* 29% 71% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Was the perpetrator alone, or was there more than one perpetrator? Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=48). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=57). Six out of 10 LGBTI people in the region (60 percent) were harassed by male perpetrators or groups of male perpetrators, while only 6 percent of the incidents were committed by female perpetrators (and the rest by mixed groups). For more than half of the LGBTI people (56 percent), their most serious incident of harassment was perpetrated by someone they know (with no material differences between the countries or LGBTI subgroups). Those who are open about their sexual orientation were frequently harassed by somebody they did not know (62 percent), as were people involved in LGBTI movements (52 percent). The most common perpetrators of harassment were people from school or college (23 percent) and teenagers (20 percent). One out of eight (12 percent) respondents were harassed by family or household members (table 4.7.4.2.1). These cases were more common among females (17 percent), lesbians (17 percent), and bisexual women (18 percent). In contrast, gays were harassed less often by family or household members (8 percent) but more frequently by people from outside their immediate circle, such as members of extremist/racist groups (10 percent), neighbors (9 percent), public officials (5 percent), or police officers. 61 Table 4.7.4.2.1. Identity of the Perpetrators in the Most Serious Case of Harassment, by LGBTI group (%) Bisexual men Transgender Regional Bisexual Intersex average Lesbian women Gay Someone else you didn’t know 35 37 37 30 29 43 39 Someone from school, college, or 23 15 23 27 27 24 16 university Someone else you know 22 17 24 17 29 25 33 Teenager or group of teenagers 20 15 24 18 23 22 19 Family/household member 12 17 8 18 7 12 4 Colleague at workgroup 10 9 12 9 9 7 10 Member of an extremist/racist group 8 5 10 6 7 16 3 Neighbor 7 4 9 5 10 8 2 Don`t know 5 4 6 3 10 4 6 Other 5 3 6 4 6 6 6 Other public official (e.g., border guard, 3 1 5 1 3 2 -- civil servant) Police officer A customer, client, or patient 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 Security officer/bouncer 2 0 2 2 5 -- -- Police officer 2 1 3 1 0 2 -- Medical practitioner/health care provider 1 1 2 0 2 -- 3 N 1388 258 499 349 178 48 57 Question: Do you think the perpetrator(s) was …? Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388); no missing or refused responses. 4.7.5 Reporting harassment Overall, only 13 percent of the respondents who were victims of harassment reported the incident, and of that number, only 5 percent reported it to the police. This was similar across all surveyed countries and LGBTI groups. Those who are more open about their sexual orientation or who are involved in LGBTI movements were slightly more likely to report incidents of harassment to the police, though they also suffered incidents of harassment more frequently. About one in six LGBTI people who reported cases of harassment indicated that disciplinary action against the perpetrator was taken (12 percent). On the other hand, almost half (47 percent) of those who reported the incident stated that nothing happened, while an additional quarter (23 percent) indicated that a report was filed but no disciplinary action was taken (figure 4.7.5.1). 62 Figure 4.7.5.1. Results of Reporting the Most Serious Case of Harassment (%) Disciplinary action 12 A report was filed, but no disciplinary action yet 15 A report was filed, but no disciplinary action in the end 23 Nothing happened 47 Don`t know 4 0 20 40 Question: And what happened as a result of reporting the incident? Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and reported it (N=73); no missing or refused resposnes. The most common reason for not reporting cases of harassment to the police was the conviction that the police would not take action (48 percent). A country by country analysis of the responses reveals that:  LGBTI people in Slovenia (47 percent) and Croatia (41 percent) believe that the incidents were too minor to be reported (table 4.7.5.1).  In Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, LGBTI people believe that the police would not do anything (57 percent and 59 percent, respectively) or could not do anything (46 percent and 52 percent, respectively) about the incident.  Responses in FYR Macedonia revealed that fear of homophobic and/or transphobic reactions from the police (30 percent) prevented reports from being made. They also thought that people would not understand the issue (28 percent). Given the reasons provided for not reporting incidents of harassment, it is not surprising that (26 percent) of LGBTI people in FYR Macedonia said that they deal with incidents of harassment themselves.  Lastly, LGBTI people in Montenegro reported that they often do not report because they are afraid of the perpetrators or reprisals (32 percent). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, one in four LGBTI people did not report cases of harassment for the same reason. Table 4.7.5.1. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Serious Case of Harassment to the Police, by country (multiple answers, %) Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR Did not think they would do anything 43 33 57 38 59 39 33 30 Did not think they could do anything 34 23 46 32 52 27 34 23 Too minor/not serious enough/never 33 30 27 41 18 29 30 47 occurred to me Shame, embarrassment, didn’t want anyone 21 19 21 20 22 24 30 20 to know Fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic 20 24 17 18 21 30 18 12 reaction from the police Dealt with it myself/involved a friend/family 18 11 17 18 13 26 18 23 matter 63 I did not think people would understand 18 8 17 19 25 28 18 14 what I was talking about Fear of offender, fear of reprisal 17 5 25 17 15 18 32 11 Too emotionally upset to contact the police 12 15 11 13 15 14 15 7 Would not be believed 12 7 14 11 12 16 11 7 Didn’t want the offender arrested or to get 5 6 5 4 7 6 11 2 in trouble with the police Thought it was my fault 3 2 3 4 7 3 3 4 Went someplace else for help 3 4 2 4 6 2 3 5 Somebody stopped me or discouraged me 3 1 2 4 6 4 7 0 Went directly to a magistrate or judge to 0.1 -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- report the incident Other reason 8 9 5 9 6 9 6 11 N 1296 193 297 307 136 160 46 159 Question: Why did you not report it to the police? Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and did not report it to the police (N=1296). Among the different LGBTI subgroups, two patterns can be highlighted regarding reasons for not reporting incidents of harassment (table 4.7.5.2):  Gay (27 percent) and bisexual men (33 percent) did not report because of shame or embarrassment. Additionally, one in three gays (29 percent) did not report harassment to the police because they feared homophobic reactions, while one in four bisexual men (24 percent) because of fear of the offenders.  Intersex persons who deal with the matter themselves (29 percent) were well above the regional average (18 percent). Bisexual women also tended to take the matter into their own hands, with 24 percent reporting that they dealt with it personally or with the help of family or friends. Table 4.7.5.2. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Serious Case of Harassment to the Police, by LGBTI group (multiple answers, %) Bisexual men Transgender Regional Bisexual Intersex average Lesbian women Gay Did not think they would do anything 43 37 46 39 50 43 46 Did not think they could do anything 34 31 35 33 37 32 42 Too minor/not serious enough/never occurred to me 33 31 30 37 38 12 29 Shame, embarrassment, didn’t want anyone to know 21 15 27 11 33 20 33 Fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction from 20 13 29 9 25 19 24 the police Dealt with it myself/involved a friend/family matter 18 16 15 24 13 12 29 I did not think people would understand what I was 18 13 20 17 22 16 15 talking about Fear of offender, fear of reprisal 17 14 16 14 24 26 12 Too emotionally upset to contact the police 12 8 12 11 15 20 28 Would not be believed 12 10 13 10 13 9 17 64 Didn’t want the offender arrested or to get in trouble with 5 5 3 7 8 4 2 the police Thought it was my fault 3 3 2 4 4 7 10 Went someplace else for help 3 3 4 4 2 11 -- Somebody stopped me or discouraged me 3 4 2 4 3 2 1 Went directly to a magistrate or judge to report the 0.1 -- -- -- 1 -- 1 incident Other reason 8 9 6 8 10 14 3 N 1296 243 453 333 171 41 55 Question: Why did you not report it to the police? Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and did not report it to the police (N=1296). 4.7.5.1 Reporting the incident to other organizations/institutions Very few LGBTI people in the region reported incidents of harassment to an organization or institution other than police. Aside from the police, reports of incidents of harassment were commonly reported to LGBTI organizations (8 percent), as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that do not necessarily deal with LGBTI issues (figure 4.7.5.1.1). Figure 4.7.5.1.1: Organizations and Institutions, other than Police, to which Incidents of Harassment Were Reported (%) LGBTI organization 8 Nongovernmental organization 3 State or national institution (such as an Equality Body) 1 Hospital or other medical service 1 General victim support organization 1 Rape crisis center 0 Internet service provider 1 Other organization 1 No, did not report 86 0 20 40 60 80 Question: Did you or anyone else report it to any of the following organizations/institutions? Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388); Don't know responses (N=40) 65 5. Violence Against LGBTI People “My sister attacked me with a knife after finding out that I ha[ve] a boyfriend, and she took my phone…. My father threatened [to] kill me...” (Gay man, Montenegro) Violence is one of the most severe experiences a person can face in life and has serious impacts on health, as well as economic and social outcomes. LGBTI people are often vulnerable to high levels of violence and threats of violence and also live with greater fear of violence—all of which affect life opportunities and choices. The survey asked respondents about their experiences of violence39 in the past five years (Section 5.1), as well as whether they reported the violence to the authorities (Section 5.2). CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS One in three LGBTI people (32 percent) had been a victim of violence within the past five years. This compares to 26 percent of the respondents to the FRA 2012 survey who reported that they had been victims of violence. Transgender respondents (55 percent) and men who are perceived as feminine (53 percent) were the most vulnerable groups. The most common types of violence were threats of physical violence (40 percent) and actual physical assaults (36 percent). The victim often knew the perpetrator, and in 20 percent of cases, the perpetrator was a family or household member. Less than one-fifth (17 percent) of the cases of violence were reported to the police. In the FRA survey, 22 percent of respondents reported the most serious incidents of violence to the police, while 17 percent reported the most recent incident. The most common reasons for not reporting included a belief that the police would not or could not do anything about the incident, fear that the perpetrator would retaliate, and fear of homophobic or transphobic reactions from the police. Comparing across countries, violence was widespread in Bosnia and Herzegovina (41 percent had experienced it) and Kosovo (40 percent), and least commonly reported in Slovenia (20 percent). 5.1 Experiences of violence One in three LGBTI people (33 percent) across the region had been a victim of physical and/or sexual violence or was threatened with violence within the past five years (figure 5.1.1). Compared to the regional average, LGBTI people in Bosnia and Herzegovina (43 percent) and Kosovo (41 percent) had been assaulted or threatened with violence more frequently. The transgender community stands out as the most vulnerable group, as every second transgender individual (55 percent) had been a victim of physical violence and/or sexual assault or threatened with violence in the past five years. 39Violence is defined as incidents in which a person is physically or sexually assaulted or threatened with violence at home or elsewhere (street, on public transport, at your workplace, etc.). 66 Figure 5.1.1. Experiences of Being Physically/Sexually Assaulted or Threatened with Violence, by country and LGBTI group (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE 33 Bosnia and Herzegovina 43 Kosovo 41 Montenegro 38 FYR Macedonia 33 Albania 29 Croatia 29 Slovenia 22 Transgender* 55 Intersex** 33 Gay 38 Bisexual female 31 Lesbian 28 Bisexual male 29 0 20 40 60 Question: In the past 5 years, have you been: physically/sexually assaulted or threatened with violence at home or elsewhere (street, on public transport, at your workplace, etc.) for any reason? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). 5.1.1 Profile of LGBTI people who were victims of violence Three groups of LGBTI people were frequent victims of violence (Figure 5.1.1.1):  LGBTI people who are involved in LGBTI movements were more likely to experience violence (43 percent) than those who are not (31 percent).  LGBTI people who are members of at least one other minority group (e.g., religious or ethnic minority) were victims of violence more often (49 percent) than those who are not (28 percent).  LGBTI people who are perceived differently from the sex assigned to them at birth (43 percent), in particular, men who are perceived as feminine (53 percent), experienced violence more often than those whose perceived sex is in accordance with the sex assigned to them at birth (32 percent). 67 Figure 5.1.1.1. Characteristics of Those Who Experienced Violence (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE 33 Involved in the LGBTI movement 43 Not involved in the LGBTI movement 31 Member of at least one more minority group 49 Not a member of other minority groups 28 Perceived by others in discordance with sex assigned at birth 43 Perceived by others in accordance with sex assigned at birth 32 0 20 40 Question: In the past 5 years, have you been: physically/sexually assaulted or threatened with violence at home or elsewhere (street, on public transport, at your workplace, etc.) for any reason? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. 5.1.2 When did the violence or threat of violence happen Among the LGBTI people who had experienced a physical/sexual assault or the threat of violence in the past five years, around two-fifths (41 percent) experienced the most recent incident in the past 12 months, and 29 percent experienced the most serious case of violence or threat of violence in that same period. 5.1.3 Number of cases of violence in the past 12 months Among the LGBTI people who had experienced some form of violence in the past 12 months, six out of 10 suffered violence on more than one occasion, 37 percent two or three times, and 23 percent more than three times. On average, LGBTI people in the region were victims of violence at least three times (2.97) in the past 12 months. There were no differences between countries in the average number of assaults or threats of violence, but among LGBTI groups, the transgender community stands out with twice the number of cases (5.93 times) of violence compared to the regional average. 5.1.4 Detailed view of the most serious case of violence 5.1.4.1 Most serious violent incident LGBTI people experienced For almost half (47 percent) of LGBTI people across the region, the most serious case of violence was an assault, while for the other half it was a threat of violence (table 5.1.4.1.1). Among those assaulted, more than one-third (36 percent) in the region were physically assaulted, while 11 percent were sexually assaulted or both physically and sexually assaulted. Regarding threats of violence, 40 percent were threatened with physical violence, while every tenth individual (10 percent) was threatened with sexual violence or both physical and sexual violence. Physical assaults were the most serious cases of violence in Kosovo (50 percent of cases), higher than the regional average. In Albania, assaults with a sexual component (sexual or physical and sexual assault) were regarded as the most serious incidents of violence (17 percent). 68 The most serious cases of violence experienced by women had a sexual component. Among LGBTI groups, 19 percent of bisexual women were sexually or physically and sexually assaulted, while 15 percent of lesbians were threatened with sexual or both physical and sexual violence. Table 5.1.4.1.1. Type of Violence in the Most Serious Case of Violence, by country and LGBTI group (%) Threat of physical Threat of sexual Physical assault Sexual/Physical sexual violence violence/both physical and Don`t know and sexual violence assault Regional average 36 11 40 10 4 Albania 27 17 39 12 6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 37 8 39 15 1 Croatia 34 9 48 7 3 Kosovo 50 12 34 4 FYR Macedonia 37 11 37 7 9 Montenegro 46 1 36 13 5 Slovenia 31 17 36 12 5 Lesbian 42 8 29 15 6 Bisexual men 39 3 44 7 7 Gay 38 8 44 6 3 Bisexual women 26 19 40 13 2 Intersex** 40 17 29 9 5 Transgender* 38 15 41 6 Question: Thinking about the MOST SERIOUS physical/sexual assault or threat of violence, what happened to you? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=733); Don’t know responses (N=28). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=27); Don’t know responses (N=0). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=29); Don’t know responses (N=2). 69 5.1.4.2 Perpetrator(s) of the most serious cases of violence LGBTI people experienced Half of the most serious acts of violence were committed by groups (51 percent) (Figure 5.1.4.2.1). Figure 5.1.4.2.1. Experiences of Assaults or Threats whether Perpetrators Were Alone or in a Group , by LGBTI group (%) Alone More than one perpetrator REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 51 Bisexual female 69 31 Lesbian 68 32 Gay 36 64 Bisexual male 34 66 Transgender* 34 66 Intersex** 31 69 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Was the perpetrator alone, or was there more than one perpetrator? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=733); no missing or refused responses. * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=27). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=29). More than four-fifths of the most serious cases of violence in the region (81 percent) were perpetrated by men, while only 6 percent were committed by women (with the rest by mixed groups of men and women) (table 5.1.4.2.1). Lesbians reported a significantly higher percentage of female perpetrators (14 percent), though they were very rare among gay men (2 percent). 70 Table 5.1.4.2.1. Genders of the Perpetrator(s), by country and LGBTI group (%) Transgen Female Mixed Don`t know Male der Regional average 36 11 40 10 4 Kosovo 89 3 6 2 Slovenia 85 3 9 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 83 4 13 1 FYR Macedonia 82 6 9 1 2 Croatia 81 4 11 1 3 Montenegro 78 9 12 1 Albania 70 12 18 Gay 84 2 12 2 Lesbian 79 14 6 1 Bisexual men 78 4 18 1 Bisexual women 78 8 13 1 1 Intersex** 92 3 5 Trans* 80 1 18 Questions: What was the gender of the perpetrator? What were the genders of the perpetrators? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=733). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=27). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=29). In the most serious case of violence, the victim knew the perpetrator(s) half (54 percent) of the time.40 This percentage was constant across countries and LGBTI groups except for Croatia, where a significantly lower percentage of LGBTI people (37 percent) experienced violence from someone they knew. LGBTI people who are more open about their sexual orientation were often victims of violence perpetrated by someone they did not know. The most common perpetrators were teenagers (20 percent), a person from school or college (18 percent), and family or household members (17 percent) (figure 5.1.4.2.2). 40Known people: family/household member; neighbor; colleague at work; someone from school, college, or university; a customer, client, or patient; or someone else they knew. Unknown: member of an extremist/racist group, teenager or group of teenagers, police officer, security officer/bouncer, medical practitioner/health care provider, other public official (e.g., border guard, civil servant), or someone else they did not know. 71 Figure 5.1.4.2.2: Identity of the Perpetrators (%) - REGIONAL AVERAGE Teenager or group of teenagers 20 Someone from school, college, or university 18 Family/household member 17 Member of an extremist/racist group 13 Colleague at work 7 Neighbor 7 Police officer 4 Security officer/bouncer 4 Other public official (civil servant etc.) 2 A customer, client, or patient 2 Medical practitioner/ health care provider 1 Someone else you know 20 Someone else you didn`t know 37 Other 5 0 10 20 30 40 Question: Do you think the perpetrator(s) was …? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=733); no refused or missing resposnes. In Albania, perpetrators of violence were more likely to be members of the family or household. Every fourth individual (25 percent) was a victim of violence committed by a family or household member; among females, the figure was 22 percent, with lesbians at 25 percent and bisexual women at 23 percent. 5.1.4.3 Where did the most serious cases of violence against LGBTI people occur? Three out of ten LGBTI people in the region (30 percent) experienced the most serious case of physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in a street, square, parking lot, or some other public place (figure 5.1.4.3.1). The second most common place was the home (15 percent), a figure that was higher for lesbians (25 percent) and bisexual women (22 percent). Every eighth LGBTI respondent in the region (12 percent) suffered violence while out at a café, restaurant, pub, or a club, and those who are more open about their sexual orientation were more likely to be victims of violence in those places. 72 Figure 5.1.4.3.1. Location of the Most Serious Cases of Violence (%) - REGIONAL AVERAGE In a street, square, car parking lot, or other public place 30 At my home 15 In a cafe, restaurant, pub, club 12 At school, university 8 At the workplace 6 In a park, forest 5 In some other residential building, apartment 4 At an LGBTI-specific venue or event (e.g., pride) 3 In a car 2 In public transport 2 Elsewhere indoors 2 Elsewhere outdoors 6 Other 6 0 20 Question: Where did it happen? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=733); no missing or refused responses. 5.2 Reporting violence to authorities 5.2.1 Reporting to the police “A colleague of mine tried to rape me at work when he found out that I had an open marriage. I reported him to the person in charge of sexual offenses, but it all ended with a conversation…” (Bisexual female, Croatia) Less than one-fifth of LGBTI people in the region (17 percent) who were victims of violence reported the most serious incident to the police. LGBTI people who are more open about their sexual orientation (31 percent of those somewhat open and 57 percent of those completely open) and those involved in the LGBTI movement (24 percent) were more likely to report cases of violence to the police. The most common reason for not reporting assaults was the belief that the police would not (45 percent) or could not (38 percent) do anything (table 5.2.1.1). Another prominent reason was fear of retaliation from the perpetrators (38 percent) and fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction from the police (31 percent). More specifically with regard to reasons for not reporting incidents to the police:  LGBTI people in Slovenia (31 percent) and Croatia (26 percent) often believed that the incidents were too minor (not serious enough) to be reported.  In Bosnia and Herzegovina (53 percent) and Kosovo (65 percent), people were afraid of retaliation by the offender(s). 73  In Kosovo, LGBTI people frequently did not report the incident because they believed that police would not respond (54 percent) or because they believed it to have been their fault (14 percent).  In FYR Macedonia, LGBTI people emphasized fear of homophobic and/or transphobic reactions from the police (44 percent). They also did not think people would understand what crime had occurred (37 percent). It is therefore not surprising that LGBTI people in FYR Macedonia often dealt with the incidents of violence themselves (22 percent). Table 5.2.1.1. Reasons for not Reporting the Most Serious Case of Violence to the Police, by country (multiple answers, %) FYR Macedonia Montenegro Herzegovina Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia Did not think they would do anything 45 35 51 46 56 42 24 45 Did not think they could do anything 38 29 45 34 54 32 28 32 Fear of offender, fear of reprisal 38 14 53 31 65 27 36 22 Fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction 31 42 29 28 25 44 26 17 from the police Shame, embarrassment, didn’t want anyone to know 28 38 27 24 27 35 20 18 I did not think people would understand what I was 24 28 22 21 25 37 18 14 talking about Too emotionally upset to contact the police 24 31 21 26 23 24 11 21 Would not be believed 18 23 18 17 11 24 13 13 Too minor/not serious enough/never occurred to me 17 16 12 26 5 16 17 31 Dealt with it myself/involved a friend/family matter 13 13 08 14 4 22 31 17 Didn’t want the offender arrested or to get in trouble 10 10 08 10 17 10 11 10 with the police Thought it was my fault 7 14 04 06 02 11 01 11 Somebody stopped me or discouraged me 7 10 04 09 10 04 13 01 Went someplace else for help 4 04 05 02 04 05 07 03 N 603 97 170 123 63 77 24 49 Question: Why did you not report it to the police? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and did not report it to the police, multiple answers (N=603); Don’t know responses (N=0). The reasons why bisexual men and women did not report incidents of violence stand out from the reasons of other LGBTI subgroups (table 5.2.1.2). A substantial number of bisexual men (61 percent) believed that the police would not do anything; incidents were also not reported because of shame and embarrassment (41 percent) or because they thought it was their fault (13 percent). Bisexual women, on the other hand, frequently did not want the offender to get arrested or into trouble with the police (17 percent). They also said that somebody sometimes stopped or discouraged them from reporting (14 percent), probably because bisexual women often experienced violence at the hands of family or household members. 74 Table 5.2.1.2. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Serious Case of Violence to the Police, by LGBTI group (multiple answers, %) Bisexual men Transgender Regional Bisexual Intersex average Lesbian women Gay Did not think they would do anything 45 44 48 35 61 45 38 Did not think they could do anything 38 38 39 36 44 36 30 Fear of offender, fear of reprisal 38 43 35 32 45 29 37 Fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic 31 22 38 18 42 53 30 reaction from the police Shame, embarrassment, didn’t want anyone to 28 20 29 25 41 32 29 know I did not think people would understand what I 24 29 25 20 20 47 22 was talking about Too emotionally upset to contact the police 24 26 24 19 24 36 25 Would not be believed 18 14 16 18 27 25 14 Too minor/not serious enough/never occurred 17 13 19 18 16 12 18 to me Dealt with it myself/involved a friend/family 13 10 12 15 15 14 22 matter Didn’t want the offender arrested or to get in 10 15 5 17 11 4 4 trouble with the police Thought it was my fault 7 8 3 11 13 Somebody stopped me or discouraged me 7 4 5 14 5 3 Went someplace else for help 4 3 4 4 4 9 Number of respondents 603 104 238 144 76 19 23 Question: Why did you not report it to the police? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and did not report it to the police, multiple answers (N=603); Don’t know responses (N=0). Disciplinary action against the perpetrator was taken in less than one-fifth of the reported cases (16 percent) (figure 5.2.1.1). Figure 5.2.1.1. Results of Reporting the Most Serious Case of Violence (%) Disciplinary action 16 A report was filed, but no disciplinary action yet 14 A report was filed, but no disciplinary action in the end 27 Nothing happened 37 Don`t know 6 0 20 40 Question: And what happened as a result of reporting the incident? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and reported it to the police (N=123). 75 5.2.2 Reporting the incident to other organizations/institutions LGBTI people also reported incidents of violence to LGBTI organizations (12 percent) and non-LGBTI CSOs (5 percent) (figure 5.2.2.1). In addition, they reported incidents to state or national institutions (such as an equality body) (3 percent), a hospital or other medical service (2 percent), and general victim support organizations (2 percent). LGBTI victims of violence in Albania most frequently reported incidents to LGBTI organizations. Figure 5.2.2.1. Organizations and Institutions, Other than Police, to which the Most Serious Incidents of Violence Were Reported (%) LGBTI organization 12 Nongovernmental organization 5 State or national institution (such as an equality body) 3 Hospital or other medical service 2 General victim support organization 2 Other organization 1 Rape crisis center 0 No, did not report 82 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Did you or anyone else report it to any of the following organizations/institutions? Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live, multiple answers (N=733); Don't know resposnes (N=16). Life of Transgender People Survey findings point to the fact that there are marked differences in the lives and experiences of people within the LGBTI population, and each subgroup faces unique challenges and difficulties. Policies and legal frameworks are often not disaggregated and do not take into account the diverse lived realities and varied experiences of each LGBTI subgroup with regard to discrimination, exclusion, harassment, and violence. Although this is true across the board, it is particularly the case for intersex and transgender people, who often are the most invisible part of the LGBTI acronym but who nevertheless, as these findings reveal, face more serious challenges than lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Given that the number of transgender respondents was small and that they are generally often missed in research, this text box will focus on the experiences and challenges faced by transgender people as determined by the survey. Openness about being transgender and avoidance behavior o One-third of transgender people said that they hide their identity. Another third rarely reveal their gender identity to people in their private and professional lives. 76 o Two out of five transgender people reported that they always or often avoid expressing their preferred gender through physical appearance and clothing for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed. Rights awareness o In general, transgender people were the most informed LGBTI group surveyed about national anti-discrimination laws covering all three grounds of discrimination (sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics). They were especially well informed about laws on discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and sex characteristics. The activism of transgender people o Compared to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and intersex people, a large percentage of transgender people said that they are engaged in one or more LGBTI movement (47 percent). Furthermore, transgender people, along with lesbians, often attend LGBTI events. “…the state needs to take the rights of the LGBTI community seriously... Also, the state should provide medical treatment for transgender persons and give them the right to change gender and name identification in personal documents.” (Transgender person, Kosovo) Discrimination and harassment o After gays, transgender people were perceived to face the most discrimination in the region; indeed, nine out of ten LGBTI people believed that discrimination against transgender people is very or fairly common in the country in which they live. o The survey confirmed that transgender people are at the highest risk of discrimination. Eighty percent had been discriminated against or harassed in the past 12 months (compared to 49 percent of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and intersex people). o Every second transgender person had personally experienced discrimination at a café, restaurant, bar, or nightclub in the past 12 months, which is twice as many as the overall LGBTI population. o Compared to other LGBTI groups, transgender people are most open about their identity at work and school but are also the most severely discriminated group in these spheres of life. o Transgender people (and intersex people) face the most difficulties in the health care system and often avoid seeking medical treatment for fear of discrimination. o All transgender people who sought help did so from a psychologist or psychiatrist. A significantly smaller number of transgender respondents sought help from other specialists or care providers (six out of 31) or a general medical practitioner (five out of 31). Most of the transgender 77 people who used medical services found that although they were willing to help, they did not offer everything that was needed. o Very few transgender people (5 percent) had bought hormones over the internet. o Eight transgender respondents had undergone medical treatment in the process of gender confirmation: three in the country where they currently live and five abroad. Of those who had not undergone such treatment (53 respondents), three quarters have considered it, with all but one weighing treatment abroad. o Transgender people reported much higher rates of discrimination in everyday life than other LGBTI groups. This discrimination took the form of experiencing less courtesy and respect, being treated as if they were dishonest or unintelligent, and/or receiving poorer service. o The transgender community was also the most exposed to harassment. More than four-fifths of respondents had been personally harassed during the past five years (compared to less than two-thirds regionally). Additionally, transgender people were subject to a greater number of specific incidents of harassment, with almost six incidents of harassment on average in the past 12 months. They were especially vulnerable to harassment in public places. Violence The transgender community stands out as the most vulnerable to violence. Every second transgender person had been a victim of physical and/or sexual assault or threatened with violence in the past five years (compared to one-third of all the other LGBTI subgroups). Improving the situation for transgender people “I would like people like me to have free medical, psychological, and legal support … because most of the transgender people must rely on sexual working services because they don’t have any other means to survive… Not to be discriminated while looking for job or going out in nightclubs… Of course, media personalities should and could promote LGBT community’s rights… better rights… better life…” (Transgender person, FYR Macedonia) Ninety percent of transgender respondents were of the view that the situation in their country is not conducive to improving their quality of life. To make progress, transgender people recommended the strengthening of national rights authorities; enhanced transgender visibility in the media, sports, and the arts; vocal support from public figures; and actions to make more places trans-friendly. 78 6. Improving the Situation for LGBTI People “For any improvement regarding the LGBT community…, there should be intensive and long-term campaigns for educating the public...” (Lesbian, FYR Macedonia) It is important for LGBTI people to have a say in the development of measures to address the issues of visibility, discrimination, harassment, and violence outlined in the survey. This exercise of agency is an end in itself and also helps to ensure that the actions taken deal with the most pressing needs. As a result, the survey asked respondents about measures that are currently being taken to improve their lives (Section 6.1), as well as actions that are needed in the future (Section 6.2). Respondents were asked to select the measures that they thought would best improve their lives from a set list of options. CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS Seventy-nine percent of respondents across the region said that positive measures to promote the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are rare (a much higher number than the 58 percent in the FRA survey). The promotion of human rights was thought to be particularly rare for transgender people (81 percent) (compared to 76 percent in the FRA survey) and intersex people (82 percent). The most popular measures respondents identified to improve their lives were: o Lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents: vocal support from public figures in favor of efforts to promote and respect their rights, and human rights training for public servants (both 89 percent). o Transgender respondents: stronger national rights authorities; increased visibility in the media, sports, and the arts; support from public figures; and more trans-friendly places (all 84 percent). o Intersex respondents: public awareness raising (84 percent) and stronger national rights authorities (82 percent). 6.1 Current measures to improve LGBTI lives According to LGBTI people who responded to the survey, existing measures are inadequate and do little to improve their lives. As many as 79 percent of respondents across the region were of the view that positive measures to promote the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are rare, a view that ranges from 58 percent in Slovenia to 94 percent in FYR Macedonia (figure 6.1.1). 79 Figure 6.1.1. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Assessments that the Situation is Fine Regarding None or Some Number of the Proposals that Might Make their Living More Comfortable, by country (%) Situation is not fine with any proposal Situation is fine with 1 or 2 proposals Situation is fine with 3 or 4 more proposals Situation is fine with 5 or more proposals Regional average 79 16 4 Slovenia 58 29 10 Croatia 62 31 6 Montenegro 86 12 1 Kosovo 89 10 2 Bosnia and… 90 9 2 Albania 91 6 3 Macedonia 94 41 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay or bisexual person in the country where you live? Note: 11 proposals were assessed. Base:Only those who consider themselves as LGB; heteroseuxal or straight did not answer this secion (98.5% of the sample, N=2295); Don't know resposnes range (N=42 to N=113) For lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, the status quo with regard to the recognition of same-sex relationships was considered to be problematic. Only 7 percent of 18–25-year-olds viewed the current situation as “fine,” a figure that was over 20 percent for those older than 45 years (figure 6.1.2.). Figure 6.1.2. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Assessments that the Situation Is Fine with Regard to the Recognition of Same-Sex Relationship, by age group (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER "CURRENT SITUATION IS FINE" 18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 45+ 24 21 17 15 12 11 7 7 Recognition of a same-sex partnership Possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person in the country where you live? Base: Only those who consider themselves as LGB; heterosexual or straight did not answer this section (98.5% of the sample, N=2295); Don't know resposnes (N=46). 80 Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who live in capital cities were more likely to view the current situation as “fine” regarding recognition of same-sex relationships (figure 6.1.3). Figure 6.1.3. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Assessments that the Situation Is Fine with Regard to the Recognition of Same-Sex Relationship, by urban or rural location (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER "CURRENT SITUATION IS FINE" Capital city Big city other than capital Small city or rural area 13 12 8 8 8 7 Recognition of a same-sex partnership Possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person in the country where you live? Base: Only those who consider themselves as LGB; heterosexual or straight did not answer this section (98.5% of the sample, N=2295); Don't know resposnes (N=46). Transgender and intersex people were very dissatisfied with existing measures to improve their quality of life. As many as 90 percent were of the view that the situation is “not fine” regarding any of the existing proposals to improve their quality of life (figure 6.1.4).41 Figure 6.1.4. Transgender and Intersex Assessments that the Situation is Fine Regarding None or Some Number of the Proposals that Might Make their Living More Comfortable (%) 2 7 10 Situation is fine with 5 or more proposals Situation is fine with 1 to 4 proposals Situation is not fine with any proposal 91 90 Transgender Intersex Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a transgender/intersex person in the country where you live? Note: Transgender people assessed 10 proposals, and intersex people 11 proposals. Base:Transgender, 3% of the sample (N=55), refusals (N=2), Don't know resposnes range (N=1 to N=3); Intersex, 4% of the sample (N=89); Don't know responses range (N=6 to N=12). 41 The small number of transgender and intersex respondents in the sample means that it was not possible to make robust comparisons between the countries. As shown in Chapter 2, in total, 55 transgender respondents (53 unweighted) and 89 intersex respondents (83 unweighted) participated in the survey. The number of transgender respondents across countries ranged from four in Albania to 14 in Croatia, and the number of intersex respondents ranged from four in Slovenia to 25 in Albania. 81 6.2 What would improve the lives of LGBTI people? “There should be training for authorities, law enforcement officers (police), and people who work in health care. Also, there should be legislation for gender equality, and same- sex marriages [should] be allowed …” (Gay man, FYR Macedonia) The most popular measures to improve the lives of LGB people were vocal support from public figures and rights training for public servants (89 percent of respondents supporting both). On the other hand, fewer respondents (77 percent) believed that marriage equality (the ability of same-sex partners to marry) and/or the possibility of registering partnerships would have a positive impact on their lives. In the case of Croatia and Slovenia, this could be because same-sex marriages and legally recognized partnerships already exist. Figure 6.2.1. Perceptions of the Issues that Would Allow for More Comfortable Living as Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual People in their Country (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: NO, YES, CURRENT SITUATION IS FINE - REGION AVERAGE Would allow more comfortable living Situation is fine Would not allow more comfortable living Don't know Public figures openly speaking in support of LGB people 89 2 8 2 Training of public servants on the rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people 89 2 8 2 More LGB friendly places -- bars, social centers, etc. 87 4 62 National authorities who promote the rights of LGB people 87 2 9 3 Measures implemented at school to respect LGB people 87 2 9 3 More visibility of LGB people in media, sports, arts, etc. 86 2 9 3 Better acceptance of differences in sexual orientations by religious leaders 82 1 13 4 Recognition of same-sex partnerships 82 11 62 The possibility of fostering/adopting children as a same-sex couple 80 2 14 4 Anti-discrimination policies referring to sexual orientation in the workplace 80 6 9 5 The possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership 77 10 10 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person in the country where you live? Base: Only those who consider themselves as LGB; heterosexual or straight did not answer this section (98.5% of the sample, N=2295); no refusals or missing resposnes. For transgender people, stronger national rights authorities, visibility in media, sports, and the arts, support from public figures, and more trans-friendly places were all perceived as equally important areas for action. 82 Figure 6.2.2. Perceptions of the Proposals that Would Allow More Comfortable Living as Transgender Persons in their Country (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: YES, CURRENT SITUATION IS FINE, NO - REGION AVERAGE Would allow more comfortable living Situation is fine Would not allow more comfortable living Don't know National authorities who promote the rights of transgender people 84 4 6 7 More visibility of transgender people in media, sports, arts, etc. 84 2 8 6 Public figures speaking openly in support of transgender people 84 2 9 6 More transgender friendly places -- bars, social centers, etc. 84 6 6 5 Measures implemented at school to respect transgender people 83 1 12 4 Training of public servants on the rights of transgender people 82 4 7 7 Easier legal procedures for gender recognition in the preferred gender 81 1 14 5 Workplace anti-discrimination policies referring to gender identity 78 2 13 6 Better acceptance of differences in gender identities by religious leaders 78 2 13 7 More options for medical treatment 78 2 15 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a transgender person in the country where you live? Base: Respondents who consider themselves as transgender persons, 3% of the sample (N=55); refusals (N=3). For intersex people, public awareness raising, and strong national rights authorities were considered important areas for action. Figure 6.2.3. Perceptions of the Issues that Would Allow More Comfortable Living as Intersex Persons in their Country (%) Would allow more comfortable living Situation is fine Would not allow more comfortable living Don't know Awareness raising of the general public about the existence of intersex people as well as about their human rights 84 2 8 6 National authorities who promote the rights of intersex people 82 1 9 9 More intersex-friendly places -- bars, social centers, etc. 81 2 11 6 Training of the judiciary, immigration officers, law enforcement, health care, education, and other officials and personnel are trained to… 81 1 11 7 Improving current anti-discrimination legislation to include intersex people 80 9 11 Easier legal procedures for intersex recognition at birth (third sex assigned at birth, except for female and male) 77 1 11 11 More visibility of intersex people in media, sports, arts, etc. 77 3 14 6 Public figures in politics, business, sports, etc. speaking openly in support of intersex people 75 1 17 7 Measures implemented at school to respect intersex people 71 16 13 Better acceptance of intersex people by religious leaders 68 1 21 10 More options for medical treatment 57 2 27 14 0 20 40 60 80 100 Question: Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as an intersex person in the country where you live? Base: Respondents who consider themselves as intersex persons, 4% of the sample (N=89). 83 More options for medical treatment were a relatively low priority for both transgender and intersex people (78 percent and 57 percent, respectively). Comparing the views of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people across countries on the specific proposals, differences were most evident in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia (table 6.2.1). However, the small number of transgender and intersex respondents does not allow robust comparisons between the seven countries and other demographic variables.42 Table 6.2.1. Perceptions of the Issues that Would Allow for More Comfortable Living as Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People in Their Country, by country (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERES: YES Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR Public figures openly speaking in support of 89 77 90 94 90 91 86 90 lesbian, gay, and bisexual people Training of public servants on the rights of 89 80 91 92 89 92 88 85 lesbian, gay, and bisexual people More lesbian, gay and bisexual friendly places -- 87 80 92 88 93 91 88 82 bars, social centers, etc. National authorities who promote the rights of 87 79 91 91 89 90 88 80 lesbian, gay, and bisexual people Measures implemented at school to respect 87 75 89 93 89 90 88 80 lesbian, gay, and bisexual people More visibility of lesbian, gay, and bisexual 86 76 86 91 91 85 87 85 people in media, sports, arts, etc. Better acceptance of differences in sexual 82 66 82 91 82 83 82 83 orientations by religious leaders Recognition of same-sex partnerships 82 78 93 72 90 92 89 69 The possibility of fostering/adopting children as 80 69 83 88 82 76 85 77 a same-sex couple Anti-discrimination policies referring to sexual 80 77 86 82 87 90 79 57 orientation at the workplace The possibility of marrying and/or registering a 77 72 89 69 82 82 83 66 partnership N 2295 386 481 583 194 279 84 288 Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person in the country where you live? Base: Only those who consider themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; heterosexual or straight did not answer - 98.5% of the sample (N=2295); Don’t know responses range (N=42 to N=113). There was little confidence in Albania that the proposed actions could change or improve the lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, as comparatively fewer respondents believed that the 42 See note 24. 84 measures could make their lives more comfortable. The most striking differences between Albania and the regional average were with regard to open, vocal support for LGB people from public figures (77 percent in Albania thought it would help compared to 89 percent in the region), positive measures in schools (75 percent compared to 87 percent), the visibility of LGB people (76 percent compared to 86 percent), better acceptance by religious leaders (66 percent compared to 82 percent), and the possibility of adopting children (69 percent compared to 80 percent) (table 6.2.2). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the recognition of same-sex partnerships and the possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership were viewed as likely to have a positive impact by more respondents than in other countries (93 percent and 89 percent, respectively). In Croatia, 91 percent of respondents felt that better acceptance of differences in sexual orientations by religious leaders would help them be more comfortable, and 88 percent that the possibility of fostering/adopting children as a same-sex couple would have a positive impact on their lives. Relative to the regional average, fewer respondents in Slovenia felt that positive actions would improve their lives on three issues: recognition of same-sex partnerships, anti-discrimination policies in the workplace related to sexual orientation, and the possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership (69, 57, and 66 percent, respectively).43 Among the different subgroups, the views of bisexual men varied quite significantly across most of the proposals. Fewer bisexual men believed that the proposals would have much of a positive effect on their lives (table 6.2.2). In addition, compared to gay and bisexual men, more lesbian and bisexual women said that the possibility of fostering or adopting children would have a positive impact on their lives (table 6.2.2). Table 6.2.2. Perceptions of the Issues that Would Allow for More Comfortable Living as Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People in Their Country, by LGBTI group (%) PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERES: YES Bisexual men Regional Bisexual average Lesbian women Gay Public figures in politics, business, sports, etc. openly speaking in 89 91 90 90 80 support of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people Training of public servants (e.g., police, teachers) on the rights of 89 92 89 90 81 lesbian, gay, and bisexual people More lesbian, gay, and bisexual friendly places—bars, social centers, 87 91 87 88 82 etc. National authorities who promote the rights of lesbian, gay, and 87 91 89 88 76 bisexual people Measures implemented at school to respect lesbian, gay, and bisexual 87 91 88 89 75 people More visibility of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in media, sports, 86 91 87 88 75 the arts, etc. Better acceptance of differences in sexual orientations by religious 82 82 83 82 77 leaders Recognition of same-sex partnerships 82 85 79 85 77 The possibility of fostering/adopting children as a same-sex couple 80 88 79 86 65 43 Same-sex marriage is legal in Slovenia, as are workplace protections. 85 Anti-discrimination policies referring to sexual orientation at the 80 86 80 81 71 workplace The possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership 77 83 75 81 65 N 2295 469 854 602 371 Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay or bisexual person in the country where you live? Base: Only those who consider themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; heterosexual or straight did not answer - 98.5% of the sample (N=2295); Don’t know responses range (N=42 to N=113). Regarding demographic variables, the most notable differences were found in relation to sex assigned at birth and involvement in the LGBTI movement:  Sex assigned at birth: more women than men felt that all the proposals, except for better acceptance by religious leaders, would allow them to live more comfortably with their sexual orientation. The greatest differences were with regard to possibly fostering/adopting children (87 percent of women and 74 percent of men) and the possibility of marrying or registering a partnership (82 percent and 72 percent, respectively).  Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people involved in LGBTI movements felt that all the proposals would help, with the largest differences being the ability to foster/adopt children (87 percent compared to 79 percent of people not in movements), visibility of LGB people in the media, sports, the arts, etc. (93 percent compared to 85 percent), school measures (93 percent compared to 85 percent), national rights authorities (94 percent compared to 86 percent) and training of public servants (95 percent compared to 87 percent). 86 7. Conclusion and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusion This report shines a light on the lives of LGBTI people in the Western Balkans, Croatia, and Slovenia. Specifically, the data collected through the survey contribute to the small but growing global evidence base on LGBTI lives and provide empirical evidence that can be used to improve their lives in this region and beyond. The collective experiences of LGBTI people in the countries surveyed paint a distressing picture of the harmful effects of discrimination, harassment, exclusion, and violence. The findings confirm that generally, most LGBTI people hide their identities for fear of discrimination or worse and have legitimate concerns about their safety, especially in public spaces, but also in their own homes. The survey indicates that the majority of LGBTI people are not involved in LGBTI movements and have limited knowledge of their rights and how to exercise them. Many are on the receiving end of offensive jokes, insults, abusive language, and expressions of hatred. Discrimination in the workplace and in the health care and education systems remains common, and incidents of exclusion and harassment are widespread. Despite the frequent discrimination, harassment, and violence that LGBTI people face, specific incidents are seldom reported. In the few instances in which reports are made, there is usually inaction or inadequate action to address the situation. Unsurprisingly, many LGBTI people are of the view that very few beneficial measures are being taken to improve their lives and that more needs to be done. For example, the public and LGBTI people themselves need to become more aware of LGBTI rights, and national human rights authorities should be strengthened to effectively address and protect those rights. Many respondents felt that the increased visibility of LGBTI people through, for example, more vocal support from public figures would help promote respect for their rights. Promoting LGBTI inclusion is important in and of itself, but also because exclusion is costly. There is increasing evidence that links exclusion with detrimental health, education and employment outcomes for LGBT people, aggregating to broader impacts on the overall economy.44 These effects can be mitigated with increased public acceptance for LGBTI people.45 Social inclusion of LGBTI people is therefore not only the right thing, but also because it is the smart thing to do. 7.2 Recommendations and next steps The Yogyakarta Principles46 are a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. They provide a concise and internationally recognized set of standards states should comply with to ensure that the human rights of LGBTI people are fully protected. Governments are encouraged to implement reforms that are in line with the Yogyakarta Principles to address the violence, discrimination, harassment, and stigma that LGBTI people face. Globally, our understanding of the lived experiences of LGBTI people is limited, even in OECD countries. The primary purpose of this report was, therefore, to help fill this LGBTI data gap in Southeastern Europe, rather than explore specific policy or operational interventions. Nonetheless, the research findings reveal areas in need of urgent attention. The survey results illustrate that LGBTI people face discrimination, exclusion, and violence despite protective laws in most of the surveyed countries. As a result, rather than focusing on expanding legal protections, the recommendations of 44 For example, Banks C. (2003). The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia in Canada . Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskathewan; see also Becker, G. (1971). The Economics of Discrimination, (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; see also Badgett, M.V.L. (2014) The Economic Cost of Stigma and the Exclusion of LGBT People: A Case Study of India. Washington D.C.: World Bank 45 For example, Banks C. (2003). The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia in Canada . Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskathewan; see also Becker, G. (1971). The Economics of Discrimination, (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 46 The Yogyakarta Principles plus 10 (2017) 87 this report focus on bringing the law to life by: expanding the evidence base, raising awareness and capacity, and closing implementation gaps. Expanding the evidence base Researchers, advocates, and policymakers should delve further into the available data to inform interventions in each country. This report highlights key regional messages, but the data set is rich and could be used for further country-specific and subgroup analyses that go into further detail. Annex 4 provides a longitudinal analysis of Slovenia and Croatia, as those two countries were part of the 2012 FRA survey. The LGBTI data gap remains large, and further research and data collection are necessary to better understand the lived experience of LGBTI people and the challenges they face. National statistical agencies should begin to collect LGBTI-disaggregated data to provide the up-to-date evidence needed to build more inclusive policies and programs at the country level, thereby aligning themselves with statistical agencies in advanced countries. Raising awareness and capacity Sensitization and capacity building programs for public servants should be expanded and strengthened. A lack of knowledge and awareness of LGBTI discrimination among public servants often results in the exclusion of LGBTI people from key social programs. To sensitize public servants, governments should conduct regular capacity building and sensitization campaigns across all relevant government branches, including for teachers, social workers, health care providers, and justice sector officials. Such training programs should be designed in close consultation with local LGBTI organizations to ensure sensitivity, relevance, and sustainability. More needs to be done to increase the rights awareness of LGBTI people. The survey findings suggest that there is a profound lack of awareness of rights among LGBTI people across the region. Governments, donors, and CSOs should consider raising awareness of these rights among LGBTI people, especially in rural areas. Enhanced, positive visibility of LGBTI people in the media, sports, and the arts could help to increase understanding and change attitudes towards LGBTI people, as experienced, for example, in the USA, Australia, and some EU countries. The capacity of LGBTI organizations across the region should be strengthened. In the last decade, a growing number of LGBTI organizations were established across the region and they have been key in achieving political and legal changes to improve the lives of LGBTI people in each country. Many of these organizations are concentrated in the capitals or other large cities and their capacity to effectively provide services to LGBTI communities is often limited. Governments, development partners and other donors are encouraged to further build the capacity of existing LGBTI organizations and actively support the creation of services for rural communities. A part of the capacity building will be to engage organizations in the collection of data on LGBTI people (especially those residing in rural locations and areas without great access to the internet). Closing implementation gaps Governments should use the survey findings to identify implementation gaps related to the EU accession process, especially for Chapter 23: Judiciary and Fundamental Rights and Chapter 24: Justice, Freedom, and Security. The five Western Balkan countries surveyed are either candidates or potential candidates for EU membership. In the most recent Communication on EU Enlargement Policy, the European Commission (EC) states, “…fundamental rights are largely enshrined in the legislation in the Western Balkans but serious efforts are needed to ensure they are fully implemented in practice.” The EC continues by highlighting that, “while progress has been made in the Western Balkans on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, additional efforts are needed to end discrimination, threats, and violence.”47 As part of the EU accession process, countries 47 European Commission. (2018). 2018 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy. Brussels. 88 develop action plans to combat discrimination and uphold human rights, including for LGBTI people, as outlined in the Fundamental Rights Charter. This survey provides new data points on implementation gaps and can inform recommendations provided by the European Commission. The data can be used as a baseline for the action plans. Over time, countries should conduct follow-up surveys to track results on reducing discrimination against, and the exclusion of, LGBTI people and progress under Chapters 23 and 24. Governments should improve the criminal justice response to violence against LGBTI people. Safe reporting structures are needed to encourage LGBTI people to report violence, harassment, and discrimination without fear of exposure, retaliation, or further discrimination. Similarly, LGBTI people need to feel assured that their cases will be taken seriously and handled professionally and that actions will be taken to bring perpetrators to account. Ministries of Justice and the Interior in the seven countries examined are therefore encouraged to identify ways to improve the treatment of LGBTI people in the justice system. Rights awareness and capacity building are needed for justice personnel, including police, prosecutors, judges, and staff. The European Commission’s 2018 Annual Enlargement packages for each of the Western Balkan countries provide detailed recommendations for governments on the judiciary and fundamental rights, as well as justice, freedom, and security. Safe spaces should be created. The widespread experiences of violence and other security concerns, both in public and private areas, indicate that safe spaces should be created where LGBTI people can receive specialized services and support. Civil society groups already offer a patchwork of services, and governments and donors should consider how to best support them to strengthen delivery. Governments should also strengthen victim support services to ensure that LGBTI victims of crime receive the services they need. Further, general government public health campaigns against (domestic) violence should contain LGBTI components. 89 Annex 1. Method and Weighting Data collection method. Data collection was made possible by programming the questionnaire in all local languages using IPSOS’s own data entry program. All the logical checks in the questionnaire were implemented. The data collection program guaranteed full protection of respondents’ privacy and confidentiality, facilitating their participation in the survey. The CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interviewing) method of data collection was used. CAWI makes it possible to conduct interviews through a website or via e-mail to collect information on the characteristics and attitudes of respondents. The questionnaire appears in the browser as a webpage. Responses are sent directly to a server, so the results of the research and data collection can be continuously monitored. The survey was available in all the main web browsers, including Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera, and was adjusted for use on different types of devices—desktop computers, personal computers/laptops, tablets, and smartphones. The landing page of the survey’s website is shown below. It included the most relevant information about the survey and who was conducting it, as well as guarantees of the privacy of the respondents. Weighting of the sample Representative surveys of LGBTI populations are difficult to conduct due to the small percentage of adults who identify as LGBTI.48 Weighting can adjust sample characteristics to population targets to correct over- and/or under-sampled groups. The challenge for populations not measured in administrative surveys (e.g., a census) or large-N studies49 is that these targets are unknown. To identify appropriate targets, results were collected from about 300 studies of LGBTI populations around the world. Online searches (Pubmed, JSTOR, Web of Science, Google, and Google Scholar) were used to find sources for the table. English key words included: LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, transed, transism, transsexual, transsexualism, transgender women, transgender men, third gender, non-binary, MSM (men who have sex with men), WSW (women who have sex with women), same- sex attraction, homosexual, HIV, AIDS, population, prevalence, size, estimation, risk factor, health, and MARP. Key words were combined and appended with a country or region name. Key words in non- English languages were also used, such as: waria, mak nyah, fakaleiti, hijra, kathoey, and bakla, as well as the translation of English terms, such as transgenero, HSH, LSL, МСМ, VIH, SIDA, and ゲイ, 同志, 同性戀. Other research was obtained by reviewing the references within the reports that were found. Additionally, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and AIDSinfo databases were examined for HIV reports. Government reports, as well as those published by LGBT and women’s organizations in various countries, were also searched. Publications in both English and other languages were included. The information collected was then broken down into separate columns in the master Excel spreadsheet. Citations were stored in a separate Word document. About 300 sources of data were identified, including 154 administrative, country-level estimates submitted by national governments to UNAIDS, as well as 150 studies published either as organizational and agency reports or as articles in peer-reviewed journals. Included in all these sources were approximately 520 estimates for particular sexual and gender minority groups according to identity, behavior, sex, and gender at the country level. Some of these studies were of sexual minority populations that were outside the scope of the current targets (e.g., MSM). After subdividing the 28 valid and verified studies to populations relevant to the current weighting targets (e.g., sexual and 48 For example, for the United States, see A. R. Flores and others, “How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United States?” (Los Angeles: the Williams Institute, 2016). 49 Studies that look for patterns in a large number of cases. 90 gender minorities), a weighting process that considered sex as assigned at birth and sexual orientation was the most appropriate.50 A hierarchical, Bayesian meta-analysis was performed to derive targets, taking into account the diversity of countries and populations included. Each country sampled in the current study was reweighted for these targets, which had the advantage of ensuring that those assigned female sex at birth were weighted appropriately in the resultant survey data. Some of the outreach methods have the potential of recruiting more people who were assigned male sex at birth, which could alter the results toward the narratives of people assigned male sex at birth. The weights account for this potential skewing of results by ensuring a narrative common to people assigned male sex or female sex at birth. A summary of the population targets is provided below (table A1.1). A final adjustment to the weights was applied such that each country sample was weighted proportionately to the size of its adult population. This way, regional estimates were adjusted for larger and smaller countries. Table A1.1. Summary of the Population Weights (%) Assigned male sex at birth Assigned female sex at birth Heterosexual or straight 92.8 94.6 Gay or lesbian 5.0 2.8 Bisexual 2.2 2.6 Total 100 100 The unweighted and weighted samples are as follows: Table A1.2. Sample Realization – Unweighted Data (number of respondents) Country/LGBTI Lesbian Gay Bisexual Bisexual Transgender Intersex Total group women men women men Albania 29 72 40 41 2 13 197 Bosnia and 106 114 102 35 5 12 374 Herzegovina Croatia 146 245 126 42 13 8 580 Kosovo 18 44 20 25 8 12 127 FYR Macedonia 64 174 101 55 10 22 426 Montenegro 42 44 56 15 6 12 175 Slovenia 85 222 76 21 9 4 417 Total 490 915 521 234 53 83 2296 Table A1.3. Sample Realization – Weighted Data (number of respondents) Country/LGBTI Lesbian Gay Bisexual Bisexual Transgender Intersex Total51 group women men women men Albania 77 133 96 58 4 25 394 Bosnia and 97 174 122 70 7 17 487 Herzegovina Croatia 118 211 147 94 14 7 590 Kosovo 36 66 46 24 13 15 200 FYR Macedonia 51 97 71 41 7 15 282 Montenegro 17 27 20 12 3 6 85 Slovenia 61 103 72 42 8 4 289 Total 457 811 574 341 56 89 2329 50 Given the inconsistencies in reporting among these numerous studies, factors such as age or educational attainment were unable to be included. 51 It should be noted that the total weighted numbers and sums of individual cells are not in line due to the weighting process, meaning that the numbers in all individual cells, including total weighted numbers, are not whole but decimal numbers. 91 Safety issues: One of the crucial tasks in this study was to ensure anonymity and the privacy of survey participants. This was done by a Linux data server with firewalls installed, which used HTTPS and SSL protocols. Although it was explained to the respondents that at no point would it be possible to identify any of them personally, it is likely that some LGBTI people did not take part due to safety concerns. This was possibly more common among those who are not open about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex. Availability of the LGBTI survey link to LGBTI and also non-LGBTI people: Although the survey was meant for LGBTI people aged 18 or older and included selection questions, theoretically, it was possible for anyone to fill it out. There was no way to prevent “fake” entries (i.e., to prevent non-LGBTI people from completing the survey). Nevertheless, all questionnaires underwent strict logic control, and all suspicious questionnaires, for whatever reason, were excluded from further analysis. Intersex respondents: To be as inclusive as possible, the project team decided to widen the scope of the project by including intersex people in the survey. The inclusion of intersex people was very important since data regarding their lives are very scarce. There are only a few organizations in the region that have intersex issues in their scope, and there are no organizations dealing exclusively with their rights. The scarcity of information on this subject made it difficult to predict the number of intersex people that could be expected to respond to the call to participate in the survey. Respondents were considered intersex if they answered affirmatively to the question “ Some people are assigned male or female sex at birth but are born with sexual anatomy, reproductive organs, and/or chromosome patterns that do not fit the typical definition of male or female. This physical condition is known as intersex. Are you intersex?” Based on this question, 89 intersex people (83 people before weighting the data) took part in the survey. LGBTI organizations that were involved in the project raised some concerns about the number of people claiming to be intersex, given that very few intersex people in the whole region are involved in LGBTI movements. Unfortunately, there were no means of verifying whether these people are indeed intersex or not. The commitment to protect the privacy and anonymity of the respondents meant that no personal information was collected. In adherence to the policy of inclusiveness, it was decided that all respondents who stated that they are intersex would remain in the survey. 92 Annex 2. List of CSO Survey Partner Organizations o Queer Montenegro o Juventas o Spectra o CURE Foundation o Tuzla Open Centre o Subversive Front o LGBTI Support Centre o Coalition Margins o LGBT United Tetovo o Women’s Alliance o PINK Embassy o Alliance LGBT o Open Mind Spectrum o PRO LGBT o Streha o Center for Equality and Liberty o Center for Social Group Development o TransAid o Zagreb Pride o TransAkcija Institute o Škuc LL o Legebitra 93 Annex 3: Demographics Sex: Respondents who were assigned male sex at birth were slightly more likely to respond to the survey (53 percent compared to 47 percent for females), a trend that was similar across all seven countries (figure A3.1). Slightly more transgender respondents were assigned female sex at birth (52 percent). On the other hand, among intersex respondents, a larger percentage were assigned male sex at birth (64 percent).52 Figure A3.1. Birth Sex Breakdown, by LGBTI group (%) Assigned Male to Birth Assigned Female at Birth REGIONAL AVERAGE 53 47 Gay 100 Intersex 64 36 Trans 48 52 Bisexual women and men 37 63 Lesbian 100 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: What sex were you assigned at birth? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses. Age: The average age of the respondents was 27.6 years. More than four out of five respondents were between 18 and 35 years old (85 percent), while every second respondent was 25 years old or younger (49 percent). Only 3 percent of respondents were over 45. Respondents from Slovenia and Croatia tended to be older compared to respondents from Kosovo, Albania, and FYR Macedonia. 52 For many transgender and intersex persons, “sex assigned at birth” is not a relevant category, as they do not identify with it. 94 Figure A3.2. Age Breakdown, by country (%) 18-25 26-35 36-45 45+ REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 36 12 3 Kosovo 61 26 12 1 Albania 59 34 6 1 FYR Macedonia 57 32 8 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 49 40 9 2 Montenegro 41 46 11 2 Slovenia 41 35 16 8 Croatia 39 36 20 5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: How old are you? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. On average, women were younger (average age of 26 years) compared to men (average age of 29). Bisexual women tended to be younger, with more than 90 percent under the age of 36. Bisexual men, on the other hand, were among the oldest respondents in the sample—a quarter were older than 35. Figure A3.3. Age Breakdown, by LGBTI group (%) 18-25 26-35 36-45 45+ REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 36 12 3 Bisexual women 64 30 4 2 Lesbian 44 40 14 1 Bisexual men 44 34 16 7 Gay 42 38 16 4 Intersex** 54 33 11 2 Transgender* 54 31 12 4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: How old are you? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). Education: Almost all respondents had at least secondary school education, while only 2 percent had primary school education or less. About half of the respondents had college, university, or other higher education. Openness: Overall, people were more likely to be open with friends and work colleagues and least likely to be open with neighbors, work customers, and clients. 95 Table A3.1 Openness about Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Sex Characteristics to Different Groups of People (%) Open about sexual Open about Open about sex orientation* gender identity** characteristics*** Parents/legal guardians None of them 60 38 - One of them 17 16 - Both/all of them 23 46 - N (N missing) 2182 (2) 46 (9) - Friends None 12 13 36 A few 39 26 44 Most 27 23 14 All 22 38 6 N (N missing or “does not apply”) 2169 (13) 44 (11) 74 (15) Work colleagues/schoolmates None 45 25 66 A few 35 38 28 Most 12 20 2 All 9 17 4 N (N missing or “does not apply”) 2132 (52) 43 (12) 74 (15) Siblings None 57 53 75 A few 8 7 17 Most 5 6 5 All 30 34 4 N (N missing or “does not apply”) 1997 (185) 38 (18) 74 (15) Other family members None 65 41 76 A few 21 21 18 Most 7 12 3 All 7 26 3 N (N missing or “does not apply”) 2139 (44) 42 (13) 75 (14) Medical staff/health care providers None 76 48 79 A few 17 15 11 Most 4 18 4 All 4 19 6 N (N missing or “does not apply”) 2079 (103) 46 (9) 74 (15) 96 Immediate superior/head of department None 80 61 80 A few 7 12 11 Most 4 14 1 All 9 14 8 N (N missing or “does not apply”) 1935 (247) 39 (12) 73 (16) Neighbors None 81 57 81 A few 13 16 14 Most 3 13 3 All 3 14 2 N 2130 (53) 44 (11) 75 (14) Customers, clients, etc. at work None 85 58 85 A few 9 21 10 Most 2 10 3 All 4 11 2 N 1933 (249) 41 (14) 73 (16) Question: To how many people among the following groups are you open to about your sexual orientation/gender identity/sex characteristics? Answer “Does not apply to me” excluded for each group. *Base: All respondents who consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; 98.5% of the sample (N=2293). **Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). ***Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). Figure A3.4. Educational Level, by country (%) Primary education or less Secondary education Higher education REGIONAL AVERAGE 2 45 54 Albania 3 30 67 Slovenia 3 44 54 Croatia 1 47 52 FYR Macedonia 3 46 52 Montenegro 1 49 50 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 50 49 Kosovo 1 52 48 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: What is the highest level of education you have achieved? Base: Total sample (N=2329); responses of other with a write-in (N=50). 97 There were no significant educational differences between lesbians, gays, bisexual men, and bisexual women. On the other hand, transgender and intersex respondents were less likely to have higher education. Figure A3.5. Educational Level, by LGBTI group (%) Primary education or less Secondary education Higher education REGIONAL AVERAGE 2 45 54 Gay 1 42 57 Bisexual female 2 44 55 Bisexual male 1 45 54 Lesbian 2 47 52 Transgender* 6 52 42 Intersex** 4 57 39 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: What is the highest level of education you have achieved? Base: Total sample (N=2329); responses of other with a write-in (N=50). * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); responses of other with a write-in (N=0). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); resposnes of other with a write-in (N=0). Employment status: Every second respondent indicated that he or she is in paid work (49 percent), including those who are on temporary leave from work. Given that the sample was quite young, not surprisingly, every third respondent was a student (32 percent), while every fifth respondent was unemployed or otherwise not working (including those in unpaid or voluntary work and those who are retired or are otherwise not working). Figure A3.6. Economic Activity Status, by country (%) In paid work Student Unemployed or otherwise not working REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 32 19 Albania 55 28 17 Croatia 55 32 13 Montenegro 52 27 21 Slovenia 50 38 12 Kosovo 45 29 26 Bosnia and Herzegovina 45 32 23 FYR Macedonia 40 36 24 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: Which of the following best describes your status? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses. 98 Intersex respondents were more likely to be unemployed and gay respondents in paid work. Bisexual women respondents were more likely to be students than to be in paid work, reflecting the fact that they were among the youngest respondents (figure A3.7). Women were often students, while men were often in paid work, again reflecting the age difference between the genders. Figure A3.7. Economic Activity Status, by country (%) In paid work Student Unemployed or otherwise not working REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 32 19 Gay 55 26 19 Bisexual men 53 29 19 Lesbian 53 29 19 Bisexual women 38 47 15 Intersex** 48 23 29 Transgender* 43 32 25 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: Which of the following best describes your status? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses. * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). Income: Most respondents reported monthly net household incomes that ranged from €200 to €1,000 (20 percent reported income of €200–400; 20 percent income of €400–600, and 21 percent income of €600–1,000) (figure A3.8). Slightly less than one in ten respondents reported extremely low or high monthly income: 9 percent reported income of less than €200 per month, while 8 percent reported income above €2,000. 99 Figure A3.8. Household Monthly Income, by country (%) REGIONAL Bosnia and FYR AVERAGE Slovenia Croatia Herzegovina Montenegro Kosovo Albania Macedonia 8 7 2 6 6 2 3 More than 2000 5 9 1 EUR 4 3 8 8 24 15 9 6 15 7 1500-2000 EUR 14 18 21 20 16 1000-1500 EUR 21 21 21 21 19 600-1000 EUR 25 26 28 20 20 28 400-600 EUR 20 30 200-400 EUR 17 31 24 17 27 27 20 10 Less than 200 10 20 EUR 9 6 9 9 10 13 3 3 Question: Could you please indicate what your household’s net combined monthly income is? Base: Total sample (N=2329); refused or missing responses (N=4). Differences between LGBTI groups were far less pronounced, except for intersex respondents who stood out as a group as the highest percentage of people with low net monthly incomes (less than €400) (figure A3.9). Certain other differences were also noticeable, for example, that gays and bisexual men had slightly higher monthly income, and lesbians and bisexual women had slightly lower income. These differences probably had more to do with age and gender than with the respondents’ sexual orientation. Figure A3.9. Household Monthly Income, by LGBTI groups (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE Bisexual female Transgender* Bisexual male Intersex** Lesbian Gay More than 2000 8 5 9 7 9 11 4 7 4 EUR 8 7 4 11 9 8 1500-2000 EUR 13 13 18 14 6 16 16 1000-1500 EUR 12 24 18 16 21 600-1000 EUR 22 23 15 22 400-600 EUR 20 25 29 16 21 29 200-400 EUR 20 26 20 19 10 Less than 200 EUR 19 25 9 6 7 8 12 Question: Could you please indicate what your household’s net combined monthly income is? Base: Total sample (N=2329); refused or missing resposnes (N=4). * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); no refused or missing responses. **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); no refused or missing responses. 100 Residence: The majority of respondents reported that they live in urban areas—every second respondent in a capital city (53 percent), while an additional fifth in other big cities (20 percent) (figure A3.10). Only 6 percent of respondents stated that they live in rural areas (villages). Figure A3.10. Place of Residence, by country (%) Capital city The suburbs or outskirts of the capital city Big city, other than capital (including suburbs or outskirts) Small city Rural area REGIONAL AVERAGE 53 5 22 15 6 Albania 73 6 12 7 2 FYR Macedonia 62 3 23 10 2 Montenegro 57 5 20 15 3 Croatia 53 5 22 15 5 Slovenia 50 7 15 14 14 Kosovo 46 6 17 25 6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 34 4 34 21 6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: Where do you currently live? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses. With regard to LGBTI subgroups, differences were far less pronounced but still visible. In particular, 67 percent of transgender respondents stated that they live in the capital city compared to only 39 percent of intersex respondents (figure A3.11). Figure A3.11. Place of Residence, by LGBTI group (%) Capital city The suburbs or outskirts of the capital city Big city, other than capital (including suburbs or outskirts) Small city Rural area REGIONAL AVERAGE 53 5 22 15 6 Lesbian 55 5 19 18 2 Gay 55 4 20 14 6 Bisexual women 52 5 24 12 6 Bisexual men 45 5 26 16 8 Transgender* 67 5 15 9 5 Intersex** 39 13 19 23 6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: Where do you currently live? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses. * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). Relationship status: Regionally, a slim majority of respondents were single (figure A3.12). One-third of the respondents were in a relationship and not living with their partner (31 percent), while 16 percent lived together with their partner or a spouse. 101 Figure A3.12. Relationship Status, by country (%) Have no relationship/do not have a partner Involved in a relationship without living together Living together with a partner/spouse Other REGIONAL AVERAGE 51 31 16 3 Kosovo 58 30 11 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 54 33 10 3 FYR Macedonia 54 33 8 4 Montenegro 50 39 9 2 Albania 49 39 10 2 Croatia 48 28 23 1 Slovenia 47 20 29 4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: What best describes your current situation in the country where you live …? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses. Gay men were often single (60 percent), as were bisexual men and intersex respondents (both 56 percent) (figure A3.13). Lesbian respondents and bisexual women, on the other hand, were likely to be in a relationship, as were transgender respondents (39 percent of lesbians and 37 percent of bisexual women and transgender respondents), while lesbian respondents often lived with their partner or spouse (22 percent). Figure A3.13. Relationship Status, by LGBTI group (%) Have no relationship/do not have a partner Involved in a relationship without living together REGIONAL AVERAGE 51 31 16 3 Gay 60 24 13 2 Bisexual men 56 26 15 3 Bisexual women 46 37 14 3 Lesbian 37 39 22 2 Intersex** 56 28 13 3 Transgender* 45 37 16 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: What best describes your current situation in the country where you live …? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses. * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89) Four out of five respondents who were in a relationship had same-sex partners (79 percent), while about one-fifth had a partner of the opposite sex (21 percent) (figure A3.14). Almost all respondents who identified as lesbian or gay had a partner of the same sex (99 percent of lesbians and 98 percent of gays). On the other hand, every second bisexual man or woman had a same-sex partner (54 percent of bisexual men and 53 percent of bisexual women). 102 Figure A3.14. Same-Sex versus Different-Sex Partnerships, by LGBTI group (%) Has a same-sex partner Has a partner of a different sex REGIONAL AVERAGE 79 21 Lesbian 99 1 Gay 98 2 Bisexual men 54 46 Bisexual women 53 47 Transgender* 74 26 Intersex** 61 39 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: What best describes your current situation in the country where you live …? Base: Respondents who are in a relationship; 47% of total sample (N=1085); responses of "Other, please specify" (N=19). * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who are in a relationship (N=29); responses of "Other, please specify (N=3). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who are in a relationship (N=37); responses of "Other, please specify" (N=1). The proportion of same-sex versus different-sex couples did not vary significantly between countries (figure A3.15). Figure A3.15. Same-Sex versus DIfferent-Sex Partnerships, by country (%) Has a same-sex partner Has a partner of a different sex REGIONAL AVERAGE 79 21 Montenegro 86 14 Croatia 83 17 Albania 78 22 Slovenia 78 22 Bosnia and Herzegovina 76 24 Kosovo 75 25 FYR Macedonia 73 27 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: What best describes your current situation in the country where you live …? Base: Respondents who are in relationship; 47% of the sample (N=1085); responses of "Other, please specify" (N=19). Marital status/civil status: Ninety-one percent of respondents indicated that their civil status was single, with only 6 percent married or living in a registered partnership (figure A3.16). Among them, 48 percent were in a legally recognized relationship with a same-sex partner and 52 percent with a partner of a different sex. In Slovenia, a somewhat higher percentage of married people were registered (14 percent). 103 Figure A3.16. Marital Status, by country (%) Single Married/in a registered partnership Divorced/Separated or Widowed REGIONAL AVERAGE 91 6 3 Bosnia and… 95 32 FYR Macedonia 95 23 Kosovo 92 4 3 Albania 91 5 4 Croatia 90 7 3 Montenegro 90 2 8 Slovenia 83 14 3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: In terms of your marital status in the country where you live, are you…? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. Slovenia and Croatia had the highest number of respondents who were married or in a registered partnership with a same-sex partner (39 percent and 40 percent, respectively). This is understandable, given that same-sex couples can marry or register a partnership in these countries (table A3.1). Table A3.2. Number of Respondents in Same-Sex versus Different-Sex Marriages/Registered Partnerships, by country Women in Women in Men in Men in marriage/registered marriage/registered marriage/registered marriage/registered N partnership with a partnership with a partnership with a partnership with a woman man woman man Albania 0 0 13 4 17 Bosnia and 1 10 4 0 15 Herzegovina Croatia 13 5 7 15 40 Kosovo 0 5 3 1 9 FYR 0 1 4 1 6 Macedonia Montenegro 0 0 1 0 1 Slovenia 15 5 7 12 39 REGION 29 26 39 33 127 Questions: What sex were you assigned at birth? In terms of your marital status in the country where you live, are you? Is your current partner: Woman/Man? Base: Those respondents who reported that they are in a marriage/registered partnership with woman or man (N=127); responses of “Other, please specify” (N=1). Bisexual men were more often married or in a registered partnership (10 percent), as were transgender people (figure A3.17). Among the other groups, no significant differences were visible. 104 Figure A3.17. Marital Status, by LGBTI group (%) Single Married/in a registered partnership Divorced/Separated or Widowed REGIONAL AVERAGE 91 6 3 Gay 94 42 Lesbian 93 5 2 Bisexual women 91 5 3 Bisexual men 84 10 7 Intersex** 91 6 3 Trans* 83 10 7 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Question: In terms of your marital status in the country where you live, are you…? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89) Living with children: One-fifth of respondents stated that one or more children were living in their household (20 percent) (figure A3.18). Respondents from Kosovo and Albania often lived with children in the same household (35 percent in Kosovo and 29 percent in Albania). On the other hand, respondents from Croatia and Slovenia were less likely to be living with children in their household (14 percent in Croatia and 13 percent in Slovenia). Figure A3.18. Living with Children, by LGBTI group (%) - PERCENTAGE OF ANSWERS: YES REGIONAL AVERAGE 20 Kosovo 35 Albania 29 FYR Macedonia 24 Bosnia and Herzegovina 16 Montenegro 16 Croatia 14 Slovenia 13 0 20 40 Question: Do any children (under the age of 18) live in your household? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. Transgender and bisexual women respondents were more likely to be living with one or more children in their household (34 percent of transgender respondents and 28 percent of bisexual women) than was the case for lesbians and gays (15 percent of lesbians and 14 percent of gays) (figure A3.19). 105 Figure A3.19. Living with Children, by LGBTI group (%) - PERCENTAGE OF ANSWERS: YES REGIONAL AVERAGE 20 Bisexual female 28 Bisexual male 24 Lesbian 15 Gay 14 Transgender* 34 Intersex** 27 0 20 40 Question: Do any children (under the age of 18) live in your household? Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses. * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). When looking at those with children living in their household, 18 percent of respondents were parents or legal guardians of the children (figure A3.20). There were no significant differences between the countries, but bisexual men stood out, with over a quarter of them stating that they were a parent or legal guardian of a child or children living in their household (28 percent). In contrast, gay and transgender respondents were far less likely to be parents or legal guardians (5 percent). Figure A3.20. Is the Respondent a Parent or Legal Guardian of a Child (or Children), by LGBTI group (%) REGIONAL AVERAGE 18 Bisexual male 28 Bisexual female 22 Lesbian 19 Gay 5 Intersex** 23 Transgender* 2 0 20 Question: Are you a parent or legal guardian of a child (or children)? Base: Those who have children living in their household (20% of the sample, N=465). * Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who have children living in their household (N=19). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who have children living in their household (N=24). Minority status: Slightly less than two-thirds of respondents considered themselves to be part of a sexual minority (62 percent) and an additional 15 percent part of a gender minority (table A3.2). Furthermore, one out of 10 respondents felt that he or she was part of a religious or an ethnic minority group. A fifth of respondents did not consider themselves to be part of any of the listed minorities (18 percent). Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia stand out with the highest percentages of respondents who stated that they were part of a sexual minority (81 percent in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 78 percent 106 in Croatia), while Slovenia had the highest percentage of respondents who belonged to a gender minority (61 percent). On the other hand, Albania registered the highest percentage of respondents who do not consider themselves to be part of any of the listed minorities (30 percent). Table A3.3. Perception of Belonging to a Minority, by country (%) Montenegro Herzegovina Macedonia Bosnia and Regional Slovenia average Albania Kosovo Croatia FYR A sexual minority 62 44 81 78 57 64 76 17 A gender minority 15 6 9 9 9 10 9 61 A religious minority 12 2 21 16 19 11 10 3 An ethnic minority 9 4 11 7 21 10 8 8 Other minority group 6 4 9 6 5 8 5 7 A minority in terms of disability 2 3 1 1 4 3 3 1 None of the above 18 30 10 14 23 20 12 23 Don`t know 8 19 4 4 12 9 9 6 Question: In the country where you live, do you consider yourself to be part of any of the following? Base: Total sample (N=2329). A high percentage of lesbian and gay respondents considered themselves to be part of a sexual minority (70 percent of lesbians and 69 percent of gays), while transgender respondents predominantly considered themselves to be part of a gender minority (73 percent) (table A3.3). In contrast, bisexual men and intersex respondents did not consider themselves to be part of any of the listed minorities (31 percent of bisexual men and 28 percent of intersex respondents). Table A3.4. Perception of Belonging to a Minority, by LGBTI group (%) Bisexual men Transgender Intersex** Regional Bisexual average Lesbian women lesbian Gay * A sexual minority 62 70 69 59 46 50 40 A gender minority 15 15 12 16 11 73 20 A religious minority 12 12 13 14 9 12 9 An ethnic minority 9 9 11 7 8 10 8 Other minority group 6 5 6 7 5 21 6 A minority in terms of disability 2 1 2 1 1 15 4 None of the above 18 13 15 19 31 6 28 Don`t know 8 8 6 9 12 8 16 Question: In the country where you live, do you consider yourself to be part of any of the following? Base: Total sample (N=2329). * Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55). **Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89). 107 Annex 4: Croatia and Slovenia: A Longitudinal Analysis Croatia and Slovenia were the only countries covered in both the current (2017) survey and the 2012 FRA survey. This Annex presents a summary comparison of the demographics between the two surveys, of the results on key questions. There were fewer transgender people surveyed in the 2017 survey than in the 2012 FRA survey (Table A.4.1). Overall, gay and bisexual men comprised about 60% of the sample in 2012 and about 50% in 2017. The 2017 study had a greater share of lesbian and bisexual women than in the 2012 study. Unlike the 2012 FRA, the 2017 study included intersex people. Through the rest of this comparison, intersex individuals in 2017 are removed, to increase comparability. The margins of error for the sample in each country are the following: ±3 for Croatia, 2012; ±4 for Slovenia, 2012; ±4 for Croatia, 2017; and ±6 for Slovenia, 2017.53 Table A.4.1. LGBTI Respondents by Country (number of respondents) Statistic Croatia 2012 Croatia 2017 Slovenia 2012 Slovenia 2017 Lesbian women N 235 118 160 61 Gay men N 592 211 345 103 Bisexual women N 157 147 64 72 Bisexual men N 105 94 38 42 Transgender N 108 14 29 8 Intersex N -- 7 -- 4 Total N 1197 590 636 289 Lesbian women % 20 20 25 21 Gay men % 49 36 54 36 Bisexual women % 13 25 10 25 Bisexual men % 9 16 6 15 Transgender % 9 2 12 3 Intersex % -- 1 -- 1 Total % 100 100 100 100 LGBTI people in Croatia and Slovenia experienced violence at slightly lower rates in 2017 compared to 2012. In 2012, one in three (35 percent) LGBT people in Croatia and one-quarter (26 percent) in Slovenia had been a victim of physical and/or sexual violence or was threatened with violence within the past five years. In 2017, three out of ten (29 percent) LGBT people in Croatia and one in five (22 percent) in Slovenia had been a victim of physical and/or sexual violence or was threatened with violence within the past five years. These differences, however, are unlikely statistically distinguishable from one another.54 In 2012, the perpetrators of violence against LGBT people were unknown to the survivors in four out of ten cases (39 percent Croatia; 41 percent Slovenia). This had 53 Margin of error is calculated based upon asymptotic assumptions, which are unlikely met because both the 2012 and 2017 studies rely on purposive sampling. The margin of the error is reported to understand the magnitude of differences between the two years. 54 Statistics for the 2012 FRA were retrieved from the FRA Survey Data Explorer, which do not permit statistical hypothesis tests. 108 not markedly changed in 2017 when for 46 percent of survivors in Croatia and 42 percent Slovenia, the perpetrators were unknown. The rates of reporting violence to police have increased in Croatia but decreased in Slovenia. In 2012, only 18 percent in Croatia, and 27 percent in Slovenia, of violence cases were reported to the police. In 2017, this increased slightly to 23 percent in Croatia but decreased markedly to 14 percent in Slovenia. In both years, the most common reasons for not reporting violence were a belief that the police would not or could not do anything, fear of reprisal from the perpetrator(s), and fear of violence from the police themselves. Discrimination is generally as prevalent in Croatia and Slovenia in 2017 as it was in 2012. In 2012, 94 percent of respondents in Croatia and 85 percent of respondents in Slovenia reported that discrimination based on sexual orientation is common. In 2017, 93 percent of respondents in Croatia and 79 percent of respondents in Slovenia reported that discrimination based on sexual orientation is common. In 2012, 36 percent of transgender respondents in Croatia and 19 percent in Slovenia had personally experienced discrimination in the past year. In 2017 the figures are much higher, with 54 percent of transgender respondents55 in Croatia and 94 percent of transgender respondents in Slovenia56 personally experiencing discrimination in the past year. These differences, however, are unlikely to be statistically distinguishable from one another due to the relatively small sample sizes. Reporting discrimination is slightly higher in 2017 than in 2012. In the 2012 study, 7 percent of LGBT respondents in Croatia and 3 percent in Slovenia reported their most recent case of discrimination. In 2017, 9 percent of LGBT respondents in Croatia and 6 percent in Slovenia reported their most recent case of discrimination. The most common reason for not reporting the most recent instance of discrimination was skepticism that anything would happen or change, which was similar for both years (Table A.4.2). Table A.4.2. Reasons for Not Reporting Most Recent Incident of Discrimination (multiple responses, %) Croatia Croatia Slovenia Slovenia 2012 2017* 2012 2017** Nothing would happen or change 65 62 59 55 Did not want to reveal my sexual orientation 51 31 39 33 and/or gender identity and/or being intersex Fear of discrimination or ridicule -- 32 -- 22 Not worth reporting it - it happens all the time 38 44 41 44 Concerned that the incident would not have 42 29 32 28 been taken seriously I did not think people would understand what I -- 29 -- 30 was talking about Didn't know how or where to report 27 16 18 20 Fear of intimidation by perpetrators 20 12 12 10 Too much trouble, no time 25 25 24 18 Because I was too emotionally upset to report it 15 15 11 13 55 Base: Transgender respondents (N=13). 56 Base: Transgender respondents (N=9). 109 Dealt with the problem myself/with help from 14 11 22 15 family or friends Other reason(s) 14 15 9 14 Total 100 100 100 100 Question: Why was it not reported? *Base all respondents who reported experiencing discrimination (N =215). **Base all respondents who reported experiencing discrimination: (N=161). Levels of discrimination have improved for Croatia in education and the workplace and increased slightly in health care and worsened for Slovenia in all three areas. In 2012, discrimination was more widespread in the education system (Croatia, 24 percent; Slovenia, 13 percent) and the workplace (Croatia, 24 percent; Slovenia, 14 percent) than in the health care system (Croatia, 10 percent; Slovenia, 8 percent). In 2017, Croatia reported reductions in discrimination in education (14 percent) and the workplace (18 percent) with increases for Slovenia in both areas (16 percent and 15 percent). Both countries experienced slightly higher levels of discrimination in the health care system between the two studies (Croatia, 11 percent; Slovenia, 12 percent). Jokes against LGBT people remain common, but with a decrease in Slovenia; while the occurrence offensive language by politicians has improved. In 2012, 91 percent of LGBT people in Croatia and 79 percent in Slovenia reported that it was common for people to make jokes about LGBT people in everyday life. In 2017, this was the same for Croatia (91 percent) and somewhat lower in Slovenia (71 percent).57 In 2012, 77 percent of LGBT people in Croatia and 73 percent in Slovenia reported that politicians commonly use offensive language to describe LGBT people. In 2017, this had reduced to 65 percent in Croatia and 50 percent in Slovenia. Visibility of LGBT people remains low and has decreased in some areas. In both Croatia and Slovenia, only 1 percent reported public figures being open about being LGBT in 2012. From this low base, it improved to 7 percent in Croatia and 5 percent in Slovenia in 2017. The willingness of LGBT people to reveal their identity to their neighbors decreased between 2012 and 2017. In 2012, 65 percent of LGBT people in Croatia and 49 percent in Slovenia were not out to any of their neighbors. This increased to 76 percent in Croatia and 54 percent in 2017. The home remains a site of violence for LGBT people. According to the 2012 FRA, the third most common place where violence against LGBT people occurs is in the home (Croatia, 10 percent; Slovenia, 8 percent), with higher incidences of violence against lesbians occurring in the home (Croatia, 25 percent; Slovenia, 24 percent). In 2017, the home remained a commonplace of violence against LGBT people (Croatia, 11 percent; Slovenia, 8 percent), with incidences of violence against lesbians remaining high in Croatia (24 percent) but reducing in Slovenia (15 percent). This summary comparison between the 2012 FRA and 2017 surveys for Croatia and Slovenia suggest that little has changed on key indicators of LGBT people in these countries. Some indicators suggest that the environment in these countries has gotten worse, but most suggest very little difference. The similarities between the results of the two surveys do suggest that the Croatian and Slovenia sample are sufficiently similar to produce similar results. Overall, this adds additional robustness to the 2017 study. 57 Note that the 2012 FRA relied on a slightly different question wording than the 2017 survey. 110 Annex 5: Questionnaire The questionnaire is available here: http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3212 111 113