Technical ReportPDF Available

Safe Connection Toowoomba: Connecting and Supporting LGBTQIA+ Communities

August 2022

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.23857.25446

Authors:

Annette Brömdal

University of Southern Queensland

Tania Phillips

University of Southern Queensland

Tait Sanders

University of Southern Queensland

Tarra Excell

University of Southern Queensland

Show all 5 authorsHide

Using a multi-pronged approach, this report documents how the health and wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ persons in the Toowoomba region are experienced and affected regarding the following specific domains: demographics; housing and homelessness; discrimination and harassment; feelings of support, acceptance, and safety; quality of life and psychological wellbeing; health and support service engagement; domestic, family and intimate partner violence; and community connection. Drawing on a diverse range of LGBTQIA+ voices, this report elicits a picture of a strong and vibrant LGBTQIA+ population and yet amplifies existing knowledge that there is still much do be done until LGBTIQA+ people feel safe, included, and respected in all aspects of their lives (Hill et al., 2021, 2020). In addition, drawing on the voices of caring professionals and practitioners who provide services to LGBTQIA+ people in the region, this report investigates their knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding LGBTQIA+ people. This report concludes with a range of recommendations to improve the health and wellbeing of the LGBTQIA+ population in the Toowoomba region.

Content uploaded by Annette Brömdal

Content may be subject to copyright.

List of Tables 1

2 
Contents 
Contents 
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................ 5 
Funding ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 
Terminology ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 7 
1.  Background ............................................................................................................................................... 12 
2.  Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 14 
2.1.  LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey .......................................................................................... 14 
2.2.  LGBTQIA+ Awareness Raising Training for Caring Professionals ...................................................... 15 
3.  LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey .................................................................................................. 16 
3.1.  Demographic Characteristics of Sample ........................................................................................... 16 
3.2.  Housing and Homelessness .............................................................................................................. 22 
3.3.  Discrimination and Harassment ....................................................................................................... 23 
3.4.  Feelings of Support, Acceptance and Safety .................................................................................... 26 
3.5.  Quality of Life and Psychological Wellbeing ..................................................................................... 28 
3.6.  Health and Support Service Engagement ......................................................................................... 33 
3.7.  Domestic, Family and Intimate Partner Violence ............................................................................. 42 
3.8.  Community Connection .................................................................................................................... 47 
4.  LGBTQIA+ Awareness Raising Training for Caring Professionals .............................................................. 50 
4.1.  Demographics ................................................................................................................................... 50 
4.2.  Knowledge and Familiarity about LGBTQIA+ Concerns .................................................................... 52 
4.3.  Attitudes about LGBTQIA+ Concerns................................................................................................ 55 
4.4.  Practices, Procedures and Behaviours about LGBTQIA+ Concerns .................................................. 58 
5.  Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 63 
5.1.  LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing ...................................................................................................... 63 
5.2.  Caring Professionals ......................................................................................................................... 64 
5.3.  Future Research ................................................................................................................................ 65 
6.  References ................................................................................................................................................ 66 
 
List of Tables 
Table 1: Age of participants (N = 111) ............................................................................................................. 16 
Table 2: Preferred pronouns (N = 111) ............................................................................................................ 16 
Table 3: Preferred gender identity (N = 108) .................................................................................................. 17 
Table 4: Preferred sexual orientation (N = 110) .............................................................................................. 17 
Table 5: Disability and long-term health conditions (N = 111) ........................................................................ 20 
Table 6: Highest level of educational attainment (N = 111) ............................................................................ 20 
Table 7: Current employment status (N = 111) ............................................................................................... 21 
Table 8: Current relationship status (N = 110) ................................................................................................ 21 
Table 9: Household structure (N = 110) .......................................................................................................... 22 
Table 10: Cause of homelessness (N = 17) ...................................................................................................... 23 
Table 11: Types of discrimination, harassment or violence reported (N = 64) ............................................... 26 
Table 12: Satisfaction with life by gender (N = 89) .......................................................................................... 29 
Table 13: Satisfaction with life by sexuality (N = 89) ....................................................................................... 29 
Table 14: Doctor (GP) services (N = 87) ........................................................................................................... 33 
Table 15: Health professionals seen in past 12 months (N = 87) .................................................................... 33 

List of Figures    3 
     
Table 16: Experiences of discrimination when seeing health professionals or support services in the past 12 
months within the Toowoomba region ........................................................................................................... 35 
Table 17: Types of discrimination (N = 47) ...................................................................................................... 36 
Table 18: Types of discrimination experienced accessing health care while living in the region ................... 39 
Table 19: Reasons for travel outside of Toowoomba to access health services (N = 25) ............................... 41 
Table 20: Professional services where violence was reported (N = 46) .......................................................... 44 
Table 21: Age in categories (N = 42) ................................................................................................................ 50 
Table 22: Sexual identity (N = 42) .................................................................................................................... 50 
Table 23: Religion and/or spiritual belief (N = 42) .......................................................................................... 51 
Table 24: Highest level of educational attainment (N = 42) ............................................................................ 52 
Table 25: Understanding and distinguishing between terms and acronyms (N = 42) .................................... 53 
Table 26: Knowledge of LGBTQIA+ unique health risks (N = 42) ..................................................................... 54 
Table 27: Awareness of barriers and DFIPV support services for LGBTQIA+ persons (N = 42) ....................... 55 
Table 28: Attitudes towards gender, sexuality and intersex variations (N = 42) ............................................ 55 
Table 29: Attitudes regarding gender, sexuality and sex characteristics (N = 42) .......................................... 56 
Table 30: Attitudes towards inclusive health and support service and workplaces (N = 42) ......................... 57 
Table 31: Attitudes Towards DFIPV Experienced by LGBTQIA+ Persons (N = 42) ........................................... 57 
Table 32: Attitudes towards DFIPV and trans persons (N = 42) ...................................................................... 58 
Table 33: LGBTQIA+ affirming workplace practices and procedures (N = 42) ................................................ 59 
Table 34: LGBTQIA+ inclusive language and behaviour – professionally and personally (N = 42) .................. 59 
Table 35: Confidence to discuss gender, sexuality and intersex variations (N = 42) ...................................... 60 
Table 36: LGBTQIA+ festivals and events (N = 42)........................................................................................... 60 
Table 37: Workplace anti-discrimination policies and procedures towards LGBTQIA+ persons (N = 42) ...... 60 
Table 38: Advocating against discrimination and marginalisation (N = 42) .................................................... 61 
Table 39: Confidence in recognising, discussing and responding to DFIPV (N = 42) ....................................... 61 
 
List of Figures 
Figure 1: Intersection of gender identity and sexual orientation (N = 107) .................................................... 19 
Figure 2: Are you currently studying? (N = 110) .............................................................................................. 20 
Figure 3: Type of employment (N = 76) ........................................................................................................... 21 
Figure 4: Type of housing N = 106) .................................................................................................................. 22 
Figure 5: Barriers to housing (N =110)............................................................................................................. 22 
Figure 6: Homelessness (N = 111) ................................................................................................................... 23 
Figure 7: Cause of homelessness options selected per participant (N = 17) .................................................. 23 
Figure 8: Experiences of discrimination by gender (N = 107) .......................................................................... 24 
Figure 9: Experiences of discrimination by sexuality (N = 107) ....................................................................... 24 
Figure 10: Location and settings of discrimination by gender (N = 62) ........................................................... 25 
Figure 11: Location and settings of discrimination by sexual identity (N = 63) .............................................. 25 
Figure 12: Settings/situations where participants felt supported as a LGBTQIA+ person (N = 99) ................ 27 
Figure 13: Settings/situation where participants felt safe to come out or disclose or affirm gender, sexual 
orientation and/or sex characteristics (N = 100) ............................................................................................. 28 
Figure 14: Satisfaction with life (N = 89) ......................................................................................................... 29 
Figure 15: General health (N = 91) .................................................................................................................. 30 
Figure 16: General health by gender (N = 90) ................................................................................................. 30 
Figure 17: General health by sexuality (N = 90) .............................................................................................. 31 
Figure 18: Level of depression (N = 88) ........................................................................................................... 31 
Figure 19: Level of depression by gender (N = 87) .......................................................................................... 32 
Figure 20: Level of depression by sexuality (N = 87) ....................................................................................... 32 

List of Figures    4 
     
Figure 21: Experiences of health professional discrimination ........................................................................ 34 
Figure 22: Types of discrimination by gender ................................................................................................. 37 
Figure 23: Types of discrimination by sexuality .............................................................................................. 38 
Figure 24: Health services accessed outside of the Toowoomba region in the past 12 months (N = 25) ...... 40 
Figure 25: Reasons for accessing telehealth services (N = 38) ........................................................................ 41 
Figure 26: Experiences of DFIPV by gender (N = 85) ....................................................................................... 42 
Figure 27: Experiences of DFIPV by sexuality (N = 85) .................................................................................... 43 
Figure 28: Targeted for DFIPV due to identifying as LGBTQIA+ by gender (N = 44) ....................................... 43 
Figure 29: Targeted for DFIPV due to identifying as LGBTQIA+ by sexuality (N = 45) ..................................... 44 
Figure 30: LGBTQIA+ knowledge/expertise of professional services .............................................................. 46 
Figure 31: Preferred future support access for participants who selected one response option (N = 64)..... 46 
Figure 32: Profession (N = 42) ......................................................................................................................... 51 
Figure 33: Employment status (N = 42) ........................................................................................................... 52 
Figure 34: Familiarity of inclusive behaviour and language (N = 42) .............................................................. 53 
Figure 35: Familiarity of discrimination and marginalisation (N = 42) ............................................................ 53 
Figure 36: The Electorate of Groom, to which Toowoomba belongs to, voted in support of the Same Sex 
Marriage vote in 2017 (N = 42) ....................................................................................................................... 54 
Figure 37: Knowledge and familiarity of DFIPV unique to LGBTQIA+ persons (N = 42) .................................. 54 
Figure 38: Taking a stand against DFIPV (N = 42) ............................................................................................ 62 
 
Suggested citation 
Brömdal, A., Phillips, T. M., Sanders., T., Excell, T., & Mullens, A. B. (2022). Safe Connections Toowoomba: 
Connecting and Supporting LGBTQIA+ Communities. Toowoomba, Qld: University of Southern Queensland.

Acknowledgements 5

Acknowledgements

To begin, we would like to

acknowledge the Jagera,

Giabal and Jarowair peoples,

including LGBTQIA+ Sistergirl

and Brotherboy peoples, of

the lands that Toowoomba

region are based on, and

where the studies reported on

here were conducted.

We would like to thank

Lifeline Darling Downs &

South West Queensland for

funding the Safe Connection

Toowoomba: Connecting and

Supporting LGBTQIA+

Communities program of

research, and making the

individual studies and this

report possible. Specifically,

we wish to thank their

leadership team, Jacqueline

Hudson (Practice and Program

Manager), Rachelle Patterson

(Chief Operating Officer –

Human Service Division), and

Darren Tomlinson (Practice

and Program Manager);

current and past Domestic

and Family Violence Support

Practitioners Margaret

Martin, Alexandra Fort,

Rhonda Martindale, and

Nathan Anastasi; Rob Nielsen

(Positive Relationships

Volunteer); and Mitch

Jackson-Ryan (Artist of

research report front cover

and other promotional

material).

The Toowoomba LGBTQIA+

Health and Wellbeing Survey

was generously endorsed by a

Community Advisory Group

representing rainbow

community members of

intersectional backgrounds

(First Nations Australians;

Culturally and Linguistically

Diverse; Abilities; Age;

Spiritual Affiliation) in

Toowoomba. The group

played an important role in

the survey development by

providing substantial inputs

into the design of the survey

questions, providing rigorous

feedback on the first full draft

of the survey informing the

final and subsequently

released online survey tool,

including identifying best

avenues to promote and

distribute the survey to reach

the maximum number of

Toowoomba community

members. We are immensely

appreciative of the

Community Advisory Group

for all their insights, support

and guidance throughout this

project.

A great number of individuals

and organisations also helped

promoting one/both studies

detailed in this report through

their networks. These include

Lifeline Darling Downs &

South West Queensland, True

Colours Community Alliance

Darling Downs, PFLAG

Toowoomba, Rainbow Table,

UniSQ Ally, Toowoomba

Youth Leaders Group,

Regional Youth Advisory

Committee Toowoomba,

Headspace Toowoomba,

Youturn Toowoomba,

YellowBridge Toowoomba,

Momentum Mental Health,

DISCO Toowoomba,

Queensland Council for LGBTI

Health, Queensland Positive

People, Metro North Public

Health Unit. Our warmest

thanks also go to all the

individuals and organisations

who contributed to the

promotion of these studies

but whose efforts and names

we were not able to

document here.

This report would also not

have been possible without

the many students and staff at

UniSQ offering their support

through the entire life-cycle of

the research projects. Special

thanks go to Dr Paul Gardiner,

Su Thinzar Kyaw, and Timothy

Philip.

Finally, we wish to

acknowledge and thank the

many caring professionals and

practitioners who completed

the LGBTQIA+ Awareness

Raising Training surveys, and

the 111 Toowoomba

LGBTQIA+ Sistergirl and

Brotherboy community

members who voiced their

health and wellbeing stories

with us. Thank you for

generously giving your time to

these studies; without your

voices and stories this report

would not have been possible.

We hope this report reflects

your voices and experiences

and that the findings and

recommendations from this

report will be used to affirm

and support LGBTQIA+

Sistergirl and Brotherboy

persons in the Toowoomba

region, and beyond.

Dr Annette Brömdal

Senior Lecturer and

Lead Investigator on behalf of

all program of research

authors.

Annette.bromdal@usq.edu.au

Funding 6

Funding

Safe Connection Toowoomba: Connecting and

Supporting LGBTQIA+ Communities program of

research was generously funded by Lifeline

Darling Downs & South West Queensland

Limited, as part of the implementation of the

Safe Connections Toowoomba – Specialist

Domestic and Family Violence (LGBTQIA+)

program, funded by the Commonwealth

Government.

Terminology

In this report we use the acronym LGBTQIA+ to

refer to people who identify as lesbian, gay,

bisexual, trans, queer, intersex or asexual. The ‘+’

symbolises those in our report who identify as

gender diverse, same or multigender attracted,

however who use a wide range of different

terminologies to represent their identity. Some of

the identities the ‘+’ include, that readers may be

less familiar with, including intersex are:

Brotherboy is an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait

Islander gender-diverse individual (assigned

female at birth) who lives and presents as man,

who has a male spirit and a specific cultural

identity.

Cassgender is a term for people who feel their

gender identity is unimportant or irrelevant.

Androsexual refers to the sexual orientation of

people who experience sexual attraction to

masculine attributes. It does not mean they are

exclusively attracted to people who identity as

male.

Demisexual is a type of sexual orientation or

sexuality and applies to people who only

experience sexual attraction on occasion and

when a strong emotional bond exists.

Grey-sexual is a term for people who experience

sexual attraction infrequently, it is also

considered to be on the asexual spectrum.

Heteroflexible refers to a person who is primarily

attracted to people of opposite genders but may

also experience same sex attractions to the

opposite gender.

Hetero-romantic refers to a person’s romantic

orientation towards a person of the opposite sex.

Intersex is a term for persons who are born with

sex characteristics (including genitals, gonads,

and chromosome patterns) that do not fit typical

binary notions of male or female bodies. It is

estimated that between 0.05% and 1.7% of the

population is born with variations in sex

characteristics (intersex traits). In addition to

facing medically unnecessary surgeries and

treatment without consent, people with intersex

traits also often face stigma and discrimination

(United Nations Office of the High Commissioner

for Human Rights & United Nations Free & Equal,

2015).

Omnisexual refers to a person’s sexual

orientation towards all gender identities and

sexual attractions.

Sapphic is an umbrella term typically used to

describe attraction of a woman to another

woman.

Sistergirl is an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait

Islander gender-diverse individual (assigned male

at birth) who lives and presents as woman, who

has a female spirit and a specific cultural identity.

For the purpose of analysis, and as elaborated in

section 3.1.7, it was necessary to collapse people

who selected multiple gender identities and

sexual identities into one gender and sexuality

category, respectively. We reduced the original

14 gender categories (see Table 3) to nine: Trans

man, Trans woman, Cisgender man, Cisgender

woman, Non-binary, Trans non-binary,

Brotherboy, Sistergirl and Not listed. Similar to

gender identity, and to adequately convey the

multiplicity of the varied and nuanced sexual

orientations the original nine categories (see

Table 4) were translated into representing 10

categories: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Heterosexual,

Pansexual, Pansexual+, Queer, Queer+, Asexual,

and Something else.

Executive Summary 7

Executive Summary

Lifeline Darling Downs & South West Queensland in conjunction with the University of Southern

Queensland embarked on a program of research seeking to better the health and wellbeing of the

LGBTQIA+ community based in the Toowoomba region, in Queensland Australia. Using a multi-pronged

approach, this program of research sought to investigate: 1) the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people regarding

aspects of their health and wellbeing; and 2) ascertain the impact LGBTQIA+ awareness raising training had

on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of caring professionals and practitioners serving LGBTQIA+

persons in the region. The LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey was distributed to the Toowoomba

region LGBTQIA+ community between March and May 2022. The LGBTQIA+ Awareness Raising Training for

Caring Professionals (a program of three workshops) was conducted with multiple training groups of caring

professionals and practitioners who work within the Toowoomba region between July 2021 and June 2022.

Pre and post surveys of workshop participants were administered. The results of these surveys are

captured within this report.

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey

About Participants

▪ There were 111 LGBTQIA+ participants who at

the time of the survey resided in the

Toowoomba region, 84.7% from within

Toowoomba and the remaining 13.5% from the

Greater Toowoomba region.

▪ The mean age of participants was 32.3 years

ranging from 14 to 71 years.

▪ 5.4% of participants identified as Aboriginal. 91%

of participants were born in Australia and 95.5%

of participants had English as their first language.

▪ Participants’ gender was diverse and included

70.4% of individuals with one gender identified,

and the remaining 29.6% with multi-genders.

▪ When gender was collapsed into one category

per participant there were 29.6% cisgender

women, 23.1% non-binary, 20.4% cisgender

men, 11.1% trans non-binary, 5.6% trans men,

5.6% trans women, 1.9% Sistergirls, 1.9% not

listed, and 0.9% Brotherboys.

▪ Participants’ sexuality was also diverse and

included 64.5% of individuals with one identified

sexuality and the remaining 35.5% with multi-

sexualities.

▪ When sexuality was collapsed into one category

per participant there were 19.1% bisexual, 18.2%

gay, 17.3% queer+, 11.8% pansexual+, 10%

lesbian, 8.2% queer, 4.5% heterosexual, 4.5%

asexual, 3.6% something else, and 2.7%

pansexual.

▪ Three participants were born with an intersex

variation.

▪ 52.2% of participants had a disability, long-term

health condition or both.

▪ 49.1% of participants were in one or more

current romantic relationships, 38.2% were not,

and 10% were too scared to be in a romantic

relationship.

▪ 80.2% of participants did not have children.

▪ 22.5% of participants engaged in a religious

and/or spiritual practice.

Housing and Homelessness

▪ 46.2% reported living in their own residence

(e.g., house, flat, townhouse etc), 40.6% renting,

5.7% sharing accommodation, 7.5% other (e.g.,

caravan park, owned by parents/family, couch

surfing).

▪ 42.7% lived with partner/s, 24.5% with

parents/carers, 14.5% with

children/dependents, and 14.5% were living

alone.

▪ 29% of participants had experienced barriers to

housing.

▪ 15.3% of participants had experienced

homelessness with 70.5% due to financial

hardship, 52.9% family rejection/abandonment,

52.9% mental health, and 41.2% unemployment

among other factors reported.

Executive Summary 8

Discrimination and Harassment

▪ 58.2% of participants had experienced

discrimination within the past 12 months.

▪ 100% of Sistergirls; 83% of trans men; 68.2% of

cisgender men; 66.7% of trans women and trans

non-binary; 56.3% of cisgender women; and

37.5% of non-binary people had experienced

gender discrimination.

▪ 75% of pansexual+, 73.7% of queer+, 65% of gay,

63.6% of lesbian, 55.6% of queer, 47.6% of

bisexual, 40% of asexual, 33.3% of pansexual,

25% something else, and 20% of heterosexual

persons had experienced discrimination based

on sexuality.

▪ Discrimination was experienced across a range

of locations including 17% workplace, 14% in a

public place within the Toowoomba region,

10.5% educational setting, 9.2% shopping for

goods/services, 8.7% religious/spiritual setting,

6.1% community groups, and 5.7% at home.

▪ The types of discrimination experienced included

60.9% verbal abuse, 56.3% bullying, 54.7% being

“outed”, 54.7% unfair treatment, 50% social

exclusion, and 40.6% offensive gestures.

▪ All persons with intersex variations reported

there were no specific policies and procedures in

their workplaces to prevent discrimination.

Feelings of Support, Acceptance and Safety

▪ Participants who felt a lot/always supported

identified 78.1% by friends, 54.7% with

LGBTQIA+ Toowoomba communities, 47.9% by

family, and 46.1% by health professionals.

▪ Participants who felt a little or not at all

supported identified 82.5% by religious/faith-

based settings, 50.9% within sport/physical

activity settings, and 34.4% by family.

▪ 50% of participants did not feel safe to come out

or disclose or affirm their gender, sexual

orientation and/or sex characteristics.

▪ Participants reported feeling a lot/always safe to

come out or disclose or affirm their gender,

sexual orientation and/or sex characteristics

with friends (71%), LGBTQIA+ Toowoomba

community members (60%), family (41.8%), and

with health professionals (37.2%).

▪ All persons with intersex variations reported

there were no specific policies and procedures in

workplaces to support the needs (including

health-related needs) of people with variations

in sex characteristics; and there is a lack of

training to appropriately support/accommodate

people with intersex variations.

Quality of Life and Psychological Wellbeing

▪ 27% of participants were either dissatisfied

(12.4%) or extremely dissatisfied (14.6%) with

their life.

▪ More than three quarters of trans non-binary

participants (77.7%) were dissatisfied with life.

Trans women were overall dissatisfied with life.

74% of cisgender women, and 55.6% of

cisgender men were more likely to be satisfied

with life.

▪ 70% of lesbian, 66.7% of gay, 62.6% of bisexual,

and 56.3% of queer+ participants were more

likely to be satisfied with life. Heterosexual,

asexual and something else participants were

polarised with 50% being either satisfied or

dissatisfied with life. 66.6% of pansexual

participants were more likely to be slightly

satisfied with life. And 83.3% of pansexual+ and

66.7% of queer participants were more likely to

be dissatisfied with life.

▪ 30.8% of participants reported having good,

20.9% very good, and 4.4% excellent general

health. Conversely, 30.8% of participants

reported having fair and 13.2% poor general

health.

▪ Regarding depression, 20.5% reported no

depression. 20.5% of participants reported mild,

25% moderate, 14.8% moderately severe, and

19.3% severe depression.

▪ 100% trans non-binary, 100% Sistergirl, and

100% Brotherboy participants reported

moderate to severe depression. 71.5% non-

binary, 66.7% trans men, 50% cisgender women,

and 36.9% cisgender men were more likely to

report moderate to severe depression, than mild

or no depression.

▪ 80% pansexual+, 75% asexual, 71.5% queer,

66.7% pansexual, 66.6% bisexual, 50.1% queer+,

and 37.6% gay participants were more likely to

Executive Summary 9

report moderate to severe depression, than mild

or no depression.

Health and Support Service Engagement

▪ 71.3% of participants see a regular GP, 18.4% go

to the same medical clinic and see any of the

available GPs, 10.3% don’t have a regular GP, 8%

use a telehealth service, 6.9% see a GP outside

of Toowoomba, and 5.7% go to different medical

clinics.

▪ Regarding the types of health professionals seen

in the past 12 months include, 87.4% saw a GP,

48.3% saw an allied health service, 20.7% visited

a medical specialist (other), and 18.4% visited a

sexual health service.

▪ 90.8% of participants accessing health care

within the Toowoomba region reported

experiencing discrimination including: 61.7% lack

of LGBTQIA+ supportive services; 55.3%

reported incorrect assumptions about health

needs/issues; 38.3% reported dismissal of

worries/concerns relating to health; and 36.2%

reported lack of expertise in gender affirming

healthcare.

▪ 32.5% of participants had accessed healthcare

outside the Toowoomba region in the past 12

months.

▪ Of the participants who had accessed healthcare

outside the Toowoomba region, 32% accessed a

GP, 32% accessed a surgeon, 20% accessed a

medical specialist (other), 16% accessed an

endocrinologist, 8% accessed an allied health

service, and 4% accessed a sexual health service.

▪ The most commonly reported reasons for

travelling outside Toowoomba to access a health

service include 48% the service not being

available in Toowoomba; 20% lack of expertise in

gender affirming health care; 20% lack of

LGBTQIA+ supportive services; and 16% did not

feel safe accessing health services in the

Toowoomba region (among a range of other

reasons).

▪ 89.5% of participants reported it was either very

important (70.9%) or important (18.6%) that

their health service is LGBTQIA+

friendly/inclusive.

Domestic, Family and Intimate Partner Violence (DFIPV)

▪ 53.5% of participants had experienced DFIPV at

either some time in their life (44.2%) or within

the past 12 months (9.3%).

▪ All trans women reported experiencing DFIPV.

▪ Non-binary, cisgender women and Sistergirls

were equally likely to experience DFIPV than not.

Trans non-binary and trans men were more

likely to experience DFIPV (88.9% and 60%

respectively) than not.

▪ 75% of pansexual+, 64.3% of bisexual and 57.1%

of queer+ participants were more likely to

experience DFIPV than not. Conversely, 75%

asexual, 66.7% pansexual, 57.1% queer, 53.3%

gay, and 50% of lesbians were less likely to

experience DFIPV than to experience DFIPV.

▪ 28.9% of participants who had experienced

DFIPV reported it was due to their LGBTQIA+

identity.

▪ 47.8% of participants who had experienced

DFIPV, did not report the violence to a

professional service due to a range of reasons

including being unaware they were experiencing

DFIPV; being underage and family violence was

accepted; fear of disbelief and/or judgement by

organisations that lack LGBTQIA+ DFIPV

awareness; they chose to leave the relationship;

or they had no capacity to report the violence.

Executive Summary 10

LGBTQIA+ Awareness Raising Training for Caring Professionals

About Participants

▪ There were 42 caring professional and

practitioner participants. At the time of the

survey, 69% resided within Toowoomba, 26.2%

from the Greater Toowoomba region, and 4.8%

working in Toowoomba but residing outside the

region.

▪ The mean age of participants was 45.5 years

ranging from 24 to 72 years.

▪ One participant identified as Aboriginal and

another as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

90.5% of participants were born in Australia and

all participants reported Australian/English as

their first language.

▪ Participants’ gender included 78.6% cisgender

women, 19.5% cisgender men, and one

participant who preferred not to say.

▪ Participants’ sexuality included 85.7%

heterosexual, 7.1% bisexual, with remaining

participants identifying as pansexual (2.4%),

lesbian (2.4%), gay (2.4%) or other (2.4%).

▪ Participants were employed by a community

organisation (38.1%), allied health (31%), school

and education support (19%), and emergency

services and safety (14.3%).

▪ 73.8% of participants were not in a leadership

role and 21.4% were in a leadership position.

Knowledge and Familiarity about LGBTQIA+ Concerns

▪ Post training, participants were more familiar

with LGBTQIA+ inclusive language (Pre = 38.1%,

Post= 85.7%) and behaviours (Pre = 35.7%, Post=

83.3%). Among the highest areas of increase

were in relation to understanding the terms

Brotherboy and Sistergirl (66.6%), familiarity

with what intersex variations include (66.6%),

understanding the term pansexual (59.5%), and

being able to distinguish between the letters in

the LGBTQIA+ acronym (59.5%).

▪ Post training participants also reported

increased knowledge and familiarity regarding

the disproportionate levels of discrimination (Pre

= 59.5%, Post = 97.6%) and marginalisation (Pre

= 54.8%, Post = 95.2%) LGBTQIA+ persons

experience. Among the highest areas of increase

were in relation to understanding that LGBTQIA+

people are at a higher risk of psychological

distress (2.3%), increased suicide attempts

(14.3%), and homelessness (14.3%), and could

name barriers to accessing diverse support

services (57.1%).

▪ Regarding DFIPV, post training participants

demonstrated increased knowledge and

familiarity with the types of DFIPV unique to

LGBTQIA+ persons (Pre = 23.8%, Post = 81%),

ability to identify complexities of DFIPV within

the LGBTQIA+ community (Pre = 19%, Post =

78.6%), and understanding the rates of DFIPV

experienced by LGBTQIA+ persons in an intimate

partner violence situation (38.1%). Awareness of

the barriers precluding LGBTQIA+ people

accessing support for DFIPV also increased.

Attitudes about LGBTQIA+ Concerns

▪ Post training, participants’ attitudes towards

gender, sexuality and intersex variations had

increased across a number of areas, the highest

change in relation to recognising that intersex

people are not ‘abnormal’ or ‘disordered’; they

typically have healthy bodies (14.3%); and

bisexual or pansexual persons are not lesbian or

gay (11.9%).

▪ Post training participants’ attitudes towards

discrimination and marginalisation had increased

across a number of areas, the highest change in

relation to recognising that it is not important to

ask intersex persons if they have been subjected

to intersex genital surgeries (26.2%), and it is not

important to ask trans persons about their

gender identity and if they have pursued gender

affirming surgery (14.3%).

▪ Post training participants’ attitudes towards

inclusive health and support service and

workplaces had increased across a number of

areas, the highest change in relation to

recognising that LGBTQIA+ persons should not

only access accredited LGBTQIA+ inclusive health

and support services (9.6%), and workplaces

Executive Summary 11

with religious ethos should NOT hire/dismiss an

employee based on gender identity (7.1%).

▪ Post training participants’ attitudes towards

DFIPV experiences by LGBTQIA+ persons had

increased across a number of areas, the highest

was in relation to recognising that DFIPV is NOT

always about control (23.8%); and DFIPV is not a

mutual fight (9.5%).

Practices, Procedures and Behaviours about LGBTQIA+ Concerns

▪ Post training, participants demonstrated

increased empathy towards LGBTQIA+ people

(Pre = 78.6%, Post = 100%). Participants also

reported an increase in use of inclusive language

both personally (23.8%) and professionally

(14.3%), and inclusive behaviours both

personally (26.2%) and professionally (28.6%).

▪ Post training, participants reported increased

confidence in having discussion with LGBTQIA+

people about issues relating to their gender

identity (31%), intersex variation/s (23.8%), and

sexual orientation (19.1%).

▪ Post-training, participants reported if they

witnessed LGBTQIA+ discrimination, they were

more likely to speak up at work (16.7%) and

outside work (16.7%). Likewise, if they witnessed

LGBTQIA+ marginalisation, participants reported

they were more likely to speak up at work

(23.9%) and outside work (11.9%). Additionally,

practitioners reported an increase of 19.1% in

seeking to be an LGBTQIA+ ally.

▪ Regarding DFIPV, practitioners reported

increased levels of confidence in recognising

(42.9%), discussing (38.1%), referring (50%) and

responding (45.2%) to DFIPV unique to

LGBTQIA+ people.

Background 12

1. Background

Two national reports

conducted by the Australian

Research Centre in Sex, Health

and Society (ARCSHS) at La

Trobe University, namely

Private Lives 3: The Health and

Wellbeing of LGBTIQ People in

Australia (Hill et al., 2020) and

Writing Themselves In 4: The

Health and Wellbeing of

LGBTQA+ Young People in

Australia (Hill et al., 2021),

have been instrumental in

demonstrating the health and

wellbeing of LGBTQIA+

peoples and communities

across Australia. The

combined focus of these

reports, centre around the

identities and experiences of

LGBTQIA+ adults and young

people in urban, regional, and

rural Australia in the areas of

housing and homelessness;

discrimination; domestic,

family, and intimate partner

violence; alcohol and other

drugs; and mental health and

wellbeing, including

engagement with support

services and community

connections. Valuable insights

drawn from these reports

have led to changes in policy

development and

implementation practices;

altered attitudes, beliefs and

behaviours of education

bodies, service providers, and

government agencies

supporting LGBTQIA+

individuals. This report, based

on a program of research in

the regional and rural setting

of the Toowoomba region,

aims to: 1) advance existing

knowledge, and contribute to

new knowledge regarding the

specific health and wellbeing

experiences of LGBTQIA+

people in this region; and 2)

explore and call attention to

the knowledge, attitudes and

practices of caring

professionals and

practitioners servicing

LGBTQIA+ people in the

region, including services that

support them.

The greater Toowoomba

region encompassing the

lands of the Jagera, Giabal and

Jarowair First Nations

peoples, is situated

approximately 130kms from

the city of Brisbane in

Queensland, Australia. With a

population size of

approximately 150,000 people

(Australian Bureau of

Statistics [ABS], 2016a), there

is currently no knowledge

regarding the exact numbers

of LGBTQIA+ people that

reside in this location.

Estimates based on the

Australian 2016 census

national level data suggest

that per 100,000 people

approximately 42.9 number of

people identify as a gender

other than male or female

(ABS, 2016b), and 0.17

number of people have an

intersex variation/s (ABS,

2016b). Additionally, four

percent of the Australian

population identify as LGB

(ABS, 2020). Due to its

distance from the city of

Brisbane and its primarily

agricultural focus,

Toowoomba is classified as an

inner-regional location

(Queensland Health, 2014).

Traditionally a safe Liberal and

National Party seat (ABC

News, 2022), Toowoomba has

a history steeped in

conservative values as

evidenced by the more recent

results of the 2017 Same Sex

Marriage referendum which

sought the opinion of

Australian residents as to

whether same-sex couples

should be entitled to marriage

under Federal legislation (ABS,

2017b). Notably, Groom, the

Federal seat encompassing

the Toowoomba region, voted

‘no’. Groom showed one of

the lowest percentages of

people to vote ‘yes’ (49.2%;

ABS, 2017a) in any seat of

Australia, much lower than

both the national average

(61.6%; ABS, 2017b), and that

of its home state of QLD

(60.7%; ABS, 2017b).

Set against this backdrop, the

latest ABS (2020) General

Social Survey noted that LGBT

people nationally were “more

likely to report experiencing

discrimination than people

who described themselves as

heterosexual (30% compared

to 13%)” (para. 7) and “more

likely to have experienced at

least one personal stressor in

the last 12 months (76%

compared to 58%)” (para. 12).

While the challenges posed by

LGBTQIA+ persons in Australia

are many and well

documented, with an

emerging understanding of

the challenges LGBTQIA+

persons experience in

regional/rural Australia (Hill et

al., 2021, 2020), there is little

to no research explicitly

engaging with LGBTQIA+

people in the Toowoomba

region. Broader research

suggests that LGBTQIA+

persons in regional/rural

Australia, similar to those of

the Toowoomba region,

experience very high

psychological distress, and

higher levels of suicide

ideation than those in inner

Background 13

suburban areas (Hill et al.,

2021). Additionally, more than

13% of LGBTQIA+ persons

report homelessness in their

lifetime, with perceived

causes rooted in mental

health issues, rejection from

family, and family violence.

LGBTQIA+ persons in

regional/rural areas also

report they have been

verbally harassed (41%),

physically harassed/assaulted

(10%), or sexually harassed/

assaulted (22%) based on

their gender and/or sexuality

(Hill et al., 2021).

Within this context, this

report documents how the

health and wellbeing of

LGBTQIA+ persons in the

Toowoomba region are

experienced and affected

regarding the following

specific domains:

demographics; housing and

homelessness; discrimination

and harassment; feelings of

support, acceptance, and

safety; quality of life and

psychological wellbeing;

health and support service

engagement; domestic, family

and intimate partner violence;

and community connection.

Drawing on a diverse range of

LGBTQIA+ voices, this report

elicits a picture of a strong

and vibrant LGBTQIA+

population and yet amplifies

existing knowledge that there

is still much do be done until

LGBTIQA+ people feel safe,

included, and respected in all

aspects of their lives (Hill et

al., 2021, 2020). In addition,

drawing on the voices of

caring professionals and

practitioners who provide

services to LGBTQIA+ people

in the region, this report

investigates their knowledge,

attitudes and practices

regarding LGBTQIA+ people.

This report concludes with a

range of recommendations to

improve the health and

wellbeing of the LGBTQIA+

population in the Toowoomba

region.

Methods 14

2. Methods

2.1. LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey

Community consultation

On the 15th of June 2021 the research team

consulted with a Community Advisory Group

(CAG), representing the LGBTQIA+ community in

the Toowoomba region to ensure the LGBTQIA+

Health and Wellbeing Survey met the needs of

the community. This initial consultation aimed at:

1) identifying the most important and relevant

concepts, and areas of concern for health and

wellbeing; 2) including factors contributing to

feeling supported and affirmed as an LGBTQIA+

person, and positive about one’s health and

wellbeing; 3) ensuring the survey and outputs

capture the diversity of the LGBTQIA+

community; and 4) identifying the best avenues

to promote and distribute the survey to reach the

maximum number of Toowoomba community

members. The CAG meeting was recorded and

transcribed verbatim, followed by a thematic

analysis to identify key themes and concepts

stemming from the CAG leading to the

development of the survey. The CAG then

provided rigorous feedback on the first full draft

of the survey which informed the final and

subsequently released online survey tool.

Lifeline Darling Downs & South West QLD was

included in the consultation process and

participated in the CAG consultation meeting,

providing valuable input from their experience in

working directly with Toowoomba region

LGBTQIA+ community members. Lifeline provided

feedback on the first full draft of the survey and

then piloted the online version of the survey tool

prior to release.

Survey development

The questions developed for the LGBTQIA+

Health and Wellbeing Survey were based on the

priorities identified through the CAG consultation

process and guided by ARCSHS’s national reports,

Private Lives 3: The Health and Wellbeing of

LGBTIQ People in Australia (Hill et al., 2020) and

Writing Themselves In 4: The Health and

Wellbeing of LGBTQA+ Young People in Australia

(Hill et al., 2021). Three validated standardised

measures were included in the survey: the

Satisfaction with Life Scale; the Healthy Days

Measure (CDC HRQOL-4; general health, physical

health, mental health); and the Patient Health

Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to measure depression.

The inclusion of standardised measures will allow

comparisons of the data to the broader general

population and to other LGBTQIA+ communities.

The online version of the survey had an

intelligent branching design where additional

questions were presented based on prior

responses to better understand the nuanced

experiences of LGBTQIA+ community members in

the Toowoomba region.

Participants and recruitment

The target participants were any person who

identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer,

intersex, asexual, Sistergirl, Brotherboy and/or

any other sexually and/or gender diverse person

who currently lived within the Toowoomba

region and had the capacity to access the survey.

Participants provided informed consent/assent.

Pseudonyms are used when reporting on

participants’ open-ended answers in this report.

The CAG and Lifeline assisted with identifying the

best channels for advertisement and distribution

of the survey recruitment material which

included a suite of promotional flyers (e.g.,

posters, social media images) and artwork from

within the rainbow community, such as that

representing the front cover of this report

commissioned by Lifeline. The flyers and posters

were physically distributed around Toowoomba

and within businesses and LGBTQIA+ community

organisations. The promotional material was

additionally circulated via an email distribution

lists, social media posts (e.g., diverse open and

closed LGBTQIA+ Facebook communities, Ally

networks, Queensland Hospital and Health

Service networks). In addition, a number of

broadcast and digital media appearances were

conducted in conjunction with Trans Visibility Day

and IDAHOBIT day to promote the survey.

Communications were also sent to local Health

and Wellbeing support organisations, including

Toowoomba regional councillors.

Ethics approval was granted by the University of

Southern Queensland Human Research Ethics

Committee: H21REA268.

The survey was undertaken from 21 March to 31

May 2022.

Methods 15

2.2. LGBTQIA+ Awareness Raising Training for Caring Professionals

Participants

Participants were recruited by Lifeline Darling

Downs & South West QLD. Participants

comprised one of four frontline caring

professionals in the Toowoomba region, were 18

years of age or older, completed the pre-

workshop survey, participated in all three

workshops, and completed the post-workshop

survey. The four cohorts of caring professionals

included:

1. School staff (e.g., principals, teachers, and

administrative staff) and education support

professionals (e.g., school counsellors, nurses,

psychologists, chaplains, and social workers);

2. Emergency services and safety professionals

(e.g., police service, fire and emergency service

and ambulance service);

3. Frontline allied health service professionals

(e.g., social workers, psychologists, counsellors,

and others providing essential care for LGBTQIA+

individuals at different stages of their lives); and

4. Community organisations (e.g., non-

government organisations, council members).

Participants provided informed consent and

pseudonyms are used when reporting on

participants’ open-ended answers within this

report.

Ethics approval was granted by the University of

Southern Queensland Human Ethics Research

Committee: H21REA146.

Recruitment commenced in July 2021.

Materials

The mixed-methods pre- and post- surveys

developed by the research team closely reflected

the content of the awareness raising workshops

and was designed to assess the effectiveness of

the Lifeline LGBTQIA+ awareness raising

workshops. The pre- and post-surveys were

offered to participants online through the UniSQ

Survey Tool, and captured participants’

demographic information, and their knowledge,

attitudes, and practices around:

1) gender, sexuality and variations in sex

characteristics;

2) discrimination and marginalisation

experienced by LGBTQIA+ persons; and

3) domestic, family and intimate partner violence

within LGBTQIA+ contexts.

Participants self-rated on a 5-point Likert scale

how much they agreed/disagreed with a

particular statement with responses ranging from

1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 =

undecided/not sure; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly

agree. At the conclusion of each section (both

pre- and post-surveys), participants were

prompted with an open-ended question

concerning their hopes and the extent to which

the LGBTQIA+ awareness training would/had

positively influence/d their caring profession and

practise.

Method

Matched data was analysed using a frequency

count and an exact McNemar’s test to determine

the difference in participants’ pre- and post-

workshop survey responses. Some questions

were reverse scored to reflect desired responses

of participants. Questions relating to workplace

changes were analysed using descriptive statistics

and reported on whether their workplace did or

did not engage in the practice.

Qualitative responses to the open-ended

questions in the pre- and post-surveys were

analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2019) revised

six-step guide to thematic analysis. The six phases

were applied flexibly with the end goal of

capturing the “uniting idea” of a theme within

each major domain: knowledge, attitudes, and

practices (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 593).

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 16

3. LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey

In total, 111 participants with sufficient responses were included in the dataset. Where participants did not

provide an answer for a section of the survey, these cases are excluded from the relevant sections and will

be retained in sections where they provided responses. To reflect the missing data, the number of

participants per analysis will be reported.

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample

3.1.1. Age of participants

Table 1: Age of participants (N = 111)

Age (years)

<18

8.1

18 to 24

23.4

25 to 34

36.0

35 to 44

14.4

45 to 54

10.8

55 to 64

4.5

65+

0.9

Note. Two participants did not report their age.

The mean age of participants was 32.3 years

(Standard Deviation [SD] = 12.4), ranging from 14

to 71 years. Approximately one third (36%, n =

40) were aged between 25 to 34 years.

3.1.2. Location of residence

Most participants (84.7%, n = 94) resided within

Toowoomba and the remaining (13.5%, n = 15)

were from the Greater Toowoomba region. Two

participants did not report their suburb or

postcode.

3.1.3. Pronouns

Participants were provided with a list of preferred

pronouns and were able to select more than one

option. In addition to the list, they were also

asked to state in their own words their preferred

pronouns.

Table 2: Preferred pronouns (N = 111)

Pronoun

She/Her/Hers

52.3

He/Him/His

43.2

They/Them/Theirs

26.1

Not listed

3.6

No pronoun

2.7

Note. Participants could select more than one

option. The % column reflects the percentage of

the total number of participants (N = 111).

Most participants (80.2%, n = 89) selected one

pronoun option, 11.7% (n = 13) two options, and

8.1% (n = 9) three options. The 4 participants who

selected ‘Not listed’, their stated pronouns

included Zie/Zir, He/Him/It, Neo-pronouns, and

one response has been redacted to maintain the

anonymity of the participant.

3.1.4. Gender identity

Participants were provided a list of preferred

gender identities and were able to select more

than one option to best reflect the multiplicity of

gender identity. In addition to the list, they were

also asked to state in their own words their

preferred gender identity.

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 17

Table 3: Preferred gender identity (N = 108)

Gender

Cisgender woman/

female (non-trans)

33.3

Cisgender man/male

(non-trans)

23.1

Non-binary

19.4

Trans

15.7

Genderqueer

13.0

Gender non-

conforming

11.1

Genderfluid

9.3

Trans man

9.3

Trans woman

6.5

Agender

4.6

Not listed

2.8

Sistergirl

1.9

Brotherboy

0.9

Pangender

0.9

Note. Participants could select more than one

option. The % column reflects the percentage of

the total number of participants (N = 108).

Most participants (70.4%, n = 76) selected one

gender option, 14.8% (n = 16) two options, 9.3%

(n = 10) three options, 3.7% (n = 4) four options,

and 1.9% (n = 2) five options. The top four

preferred gender identities selected by

participants were cisgender woman (33.3%),

cisgender man (23.1%), non-binary (19.4%), and

trans (15.7%). Of the three participants that

selected ‘Not listed’, their stated gender included

cassgender and gender diverse.

3.1.5. Sexual orientation

Participants were provided a list of preferred

sexual orientations and were able to select more

than one option to best reflect the multiplicity of

sexual orientation.

Table 4: Preferred sexual orientation (N = 110)

Sexual orientation

Bisexual

27.3

Gay

27.3

Queer

25.5

Pansexual

20.0

Lesbian

16.4

Asexual

10.9

Something else

8.2

Aromantic

4.5

Heterosexual

4.5

Note. Participants could select more than one

option. The % column reflects the percentage of

the total number of participants (N = 110).

Most participants (64.5%, n = 71) selected one

sexual orientation option, 26.4% (n = 29) two

options, and 9.1% (n = 10) three options. The top

five preferred sexual orientations selected by

participants were bisexual (27.3%), gay (27.3%),

queer (25.5%), pansexual (20%), and lesbian

(16.4%). Of the nine participants that selected

something else, their stated sexual orientation

included androsexual, demisexual, fem-attracted,

grey-sexual, heteroflexible, hetero-romantic,

omnisexual, and sapphic.

3.1.6. Intersex variation

Three participants reported being born with an

intersex variation.

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 18

3.1.7. Intersection of gender identity

and sexual orientation

For the purposes of analysis, it was necessary to

collapse people who selected multiple gender

identities and sexual identities into one gender

and sexuality category, respectively. We reduced

the original 14 categories for gender (see Table 3)

to nine: Trans man, Trans woman, Cisgender

man, Cisgender woman, Non-binary, Trans non-

binary, Brotherboy, Sistergirl and Not listed.

Participants were assigned gender identity

categories in the following manner: Trans man

included participants who selected trans man

plus trans and/or not listed; Trans woman

included participants who selected trans woman

plus trans; Trans non-binary included participants

who selected trans, trans man, trans woman plus

any combination of pangender, genderqueer,

non-binary, gender fluid, and/or gender non-

conforming; Non-binary included participants

who selected any combination of pangender,

genderqueer, non-binary, gender fluid or gender

non-conforming. The categories of Cisgender

man and Cisgender woman and Not listed did not

require collapsing.

To adequately convey the multiplicity of the

varied and nuanced sexual orientations the

original nine categories (see Table 4) are now

represented by 10 categories: Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, Heterosexual, Pansexual, Pansexual+,

Queer, Queer+, Asexual, and Something else.

Similar to gender identity, participants were

assigned sexual identity categories in the

following manner: Asexual included asexual

and/or aromantic; Bisexual included participants

who selected bisexual plus any combination of

lesbian, gay, asexual, and/or other; Pansexual+

included pansexual plus any combination of

asexual, aromantic, bisexual, gay, lesbian, and

other; Queer+ included queer plus any

combination of asexual, aromantic, bisexual, gay,

lesbian, and pansexual. The categories of Gay,

Lesbian, Heterosexual, Pansexual, Queer, and

Something else did not require collapsing.

Figure 1 displays the intersection of gender and

sexual identity of 107 participants. Overall, 18.7%

(n = 20) participants identified as Bisexual, 17.8%

(n = 19) Queer+, 16.8% (n = 18) Gay, 12.1% (n =

13) Pansexual+, 10.3% (n = 11) Lesbian, 8.4% (n =

9) Queer, 4.7% (n = 5) Heterosexual, 4.7% (n = 5)

Asexual, 3.7% (n = 4) Something else, and 2.8% (n

= 3) Pansexual.

Trans men (n = 6) identified as Pansexual+

(33.3%), Queer+ (33.3%), followed by Queer

(16.7%), and Gay (16.7%). Whereas Trans women

(n = 6) were more likely to identify as Bisexual

(33.3%) and Heterosexual (33.3%), followed by

Lesbian (16.7%) and Pansexual+ (16.7%). Of

Cisgender men (n = 22), more than three quarters

(77.3%) identified as Gay, followed by Bisexual

(9.1%). Of Cisgender women (n = 32), over one

third identified as Bisexual (34.4%), followed by

Lesbian (28.1%) and Queer+ (18.8%). The sexual

identity of Non-binary participants (n = 25) was

diverse with two fifths identifying as Bisexual

(20%) or Pansexual+ (20%), followed by Queer

(16%), Queer+ (12%), Asexual (12%), and

Heterosexual (8%). Of Trans non-binary

participants (n = 11), over half identified as either

Queer (27.3%) or Queer+ (27.3%), followed by

Pansexual+ (18.2%) and Asexual (18.2%). The one

Brotherboy participant identified as Queer+. The

two Sistergirl participants identified as either

Pansexual+ or Queer+. The two Not listed

participants identified as either Heterosexual or

Pansexual.

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 19

Figure 1: Intersection of gender identity and sexual orientation (N = 107)

3.1.8. Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islanders

In total 5.4% (n = 6) participants identified as

Aboriginal and 1.8% (n = 2) preferred not to say.

This is slightly higher than the general population

of the Toowoomba region and Australia (4% and

3.3%, respectively; ABS, 2016a, 2018).

3.1.9. Country of birth and language

Most participants (91%, n = 101) were born in

Australia. Other countries of birth included South

Africa (n = 2) and one participant each from

Croatia, England, Malaysia, Scotland, and Taiwan.

English was reported the first language by 95.5%

(n = 106) participants. Seventeen (15.3%)

participants reported speaking languages other

than English which included non-specified

Aboriginal language, Afrikaans, Bislama, Chinese,

Danish, Dutch, French, German, Japanese,

Mandarin, Slavic, and Swedish.

3.1.10. Religious or spiritual practice

Just over one fifth (22.5%, n = 25) of participants

reported engaging in religious or spiritual

practices. Of these, 23 (92%) participants

reported their religious/spiritual belief as

Christian (non-specified; n = 8); Catholic (n = 3);

Anglican (n = 2); Lutheran (n = 1); Buddhist (n =

1); Jewish (n = 1); Pagan (n = 2); Wiccan (n = 1);

Indigenous Australian (n = 1); Buddhist, Hinduist

and Quaker (n = 1); combination (undefined; n =

1); and individual spiritual practice (n = 1).

16.7

28.1

16.7

77.3

33.3

9.1

34.4

33.3

850

3.1

33.3

16.7 4.5

3.1

18.2

16.7

9.4

18.2

33.3

4.5

18.8

36.4

100

18.2

4.5 3.1 49.1

100

Trans man Trans

woman

Cisgender

man

Cisgender

woman

Non-binary Trans non-

binary

Brotherboy Sistergirl Not listed

Percentage

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Heterosexual Pansexual

Pansexual+ Queer Queer+ Asexual Something else

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 20

3.1.11. Disability and long-term health

conditions

Table 5: Disability and long-term health

conditions (N = 111)

Condition

Disability

18.9

Long-term health

condition

17.1

Both disability and

long-term health

condition

16.2

Unsure disability

and/or unsure long-

term health condition

6.3

Prefer not to say

3.6

35.1

Missing or invalid

2.7

Half of the participants (52.2%, n = 58) reported

having a current disability, long-term health

condition or both (18.9%, 17.1%, 16.2%,

respectively; see Table 5). A total of 35.1% (n =

39) participants did not currently experience

either a disability and/or long-term health

condition.

3.1.12. Education

Participants were asked to indicate their highest

level of educational achievement.

Table 6: Highest level of educational attainment

(N = 111)

Education level

Less than Grade 10

3.6

Grade 10

9.0

Grade 12 or equivalent

25.2

Certificate II

1.8

Certificate III

7.2

Certificate IV

5.4

Diploma

9.9

Advanced Diploma,

Associate Degree

0.9

Bachelor Degree

18.9

Bachelor Honours,

Graduate Certificate,

Graduate Diploma

9.9

Masters Degree

7.2

Doctorate/PhD

0.9

More than one third of participants (37%, n = 41)

reported attaining a bachelor degree or higher,

25% (n = 28) have completed certificate level to

advanced diploma/associate degree, 25.2% (n =

28) have completed high school, and 13% (n = 14)

have completed less than Grade 12 (see Table 6).

Figure 2: Are you currently studying? (N = 110)

A total of 40.5% (n = 45) participants reported

currently studying either full-time or part-time

(19.8% and 20.7%, respectively; see Figure 2).

Participants who reported currently studying (n =

45) were able to select more than one option

from a list of educational institutions and a total

of 49 options were selected. Most participants

93.3% (n = 42) selected one option, 4.4% (n = 2)

Full-time Part-time No

No. of participants

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 21

selected two options, and 2.2% (n = 1) participant

selected three options. The most frequent

educational institutions selected were 36.7%

University (undergraduate), 24.5% secondary

school, 18.4% University (postgraduate), 10.2%

TAFE, 6.1% Registered Training Organisation, and

4.1% other.

3.1.13. Employment

Table 7: Current employment status (N = 111)

Employment type

Employed

68.5

Unemployed

16.2

Unable to work

9.9

Domestic/parenting/

caring responsibilities

2.7

Retired

1.8

Volunteering

0.9

Most participants (68.5%, n = 76) reported being

employed, 16.2% (n = 18) unemployed, 9.9% (n =

11) unable to work, 2.7% (n = 3), 5.4% (n = 6)

domestics duties, retired or volunteering (2.7%,

1.8%, 0.9%, respectively; see Table 7).

Figure 3: Type of employment (N = 76)

Of the participants that reported being employed

(n = 76), over half (56.6%, n = 43) were employed

full-time, 22.4% (n = 17) part-time, 17.1% (n = 13)

casual, and 3.9% (n = 3) self-employed or

contractor (2.6% and 1.3%, respectively; see

Figure 3).

3.1.14. Romantic relationships

Table 8: Current relationship status (N = 110)

Relationship status

Yes

49.1

38.2

No - I’m too scared to

be in a romantic

relationship

10.0

Other

2.7

Almost half of participants (49.1%, n = 54)

reported being in one or more romantic

relationship, 38.2% (n = 42) were not currently in

a relationship, 10% (n = 11) reported being too

scared to be in a romantic relationship (see Table

8). Of the three participants who selected other,

one indicated they were coming to terms with

being gay and had not been able to have a same-

sex relationship; another participant reported

being asexual and having no desire to be in a

relationship; and the third participant reported

engaging in ‘hook ups’ instead of relationships.

The most stated reason for why participants are

fearful of being in a romantic relationship include

previous experiences of Intimate Partner and

Family Violence and specifically verbal abuse,

lying, and sexual assault. Other reported reasons

including mental health conditions such as

depression complicating being in relationship

(Nadine), negative body image impacting self-

esteem (Franky), and being a parent (Tony). In

addition, Astra felt that as a non-binary person

they seldom experienced respect and/or

understanding from people in general and had

low expectations of prospective partners. They

explained:

I'm incredibly lonely and miss the

companionship of a partner. I rarely receive

respect as a nonbinary person from general

interactions, so I expect this to be even worse if I

attempted to use a dating app etc. I am too

scared to even try to make friends in

Toowoomba after having people I've known ...

repeatedly ... make transphobic insults... Binary

trans people seem to have more acceptance on

the relationship front, as being nonbinary makes

straight people question their identity. I also

don't want to have to explain the intimate

details of it all to strangers and 99.9% of the

time [I] have to perform this emotional labour.

No. of participants

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 22

I'm too sore and tired for that. But also, very

lonely and lack connection to the community,

queer or otherwise, because of chronic illness

and disability. I'm scared of most human

interactions.

3.1.15. Children

Participants were asked if they had children (n =

111). Most participants (80.2%, n = 89) reported

that they did not have children and 19.8% (n =

22) did. Of the participants who had children, the

number of children ranged from 1 to 5, with a

mean of 2 children (SD = 1.3).

3.2. Housing and Homelessness

3.2.1. Type of housing

Figure 4: Type of housing N = 106)

Participants were asked where they live most of

the time. Just under half (46.2%, n = 49) reported

living in their own residence (e.g., house, flat,

townhouse etc), 40.6% (n = 43) renting, 5.7% (n =

6) share accommodation, and 7.5% (n = 8) other

(e.g., caravan park, owned by parents/family,

couch surfing; see Figure 4).

3.2.2. Household structure

Participants were asked whom they live with

most of the time, and were able to select more

than one option to best reflect the multiplicity of

living arrangements.

Table 9: Household structure (N = 110)

Household

Partner/s

42.7

Parents or carers

24.5

Children/dependents

(own or partner/s)

14.5

I live alone

14.5

Family of origin

11.8

Housemates

11.8

Friends

7.3

Family of choice

2.7

Note. Participants could select more than one

option. The % column reflects the percentage of

the total number of participants (N = 110).

Three quarters of participants 77.3% (n = 85)

selected one option, 17.3% (n = 19) two options,

4.5% (n = 5) three options, and 0.9% (n = 1) five

options.

The top four household structures selected were

42.7% living with partner/s, 24.5%

parents/carers, 14.5% children/dependents, and

14.5% living alone (see Table 9). Among

participants that selected one option for

household structure (n = 85), 38.8% (n = 33) live

with partners, 20% (n = 17) parents/carers, 16.5%

(n = 14) live alone, 8.2% (n = 7) housemates, 5.9%

(n = 5) children/ dependents, 4.7% (n = 4) family

of origin, 3.5% (n = 3) friends, and 2.4% (n = 2)

family of choice.

3.2.3. Barriers to housing

Participants were asked if they felt they have

ever experienced barriers to housing due to their

gender identity or sexual orientation.

Figure 5: Barriers to housing (N =110)

Three fifths of participants (60%, n = 66) reported

not experiencing barriers to housing and for

10.9% (n = 12) this question was not applicable

(see Figure 5). The remaining 29% (n = 32) of

participants reported experiencing barriers to

Own Rent Share Other

No. of participants

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 23

housing, with two (1.8%) of these participants

greatly experiencing barriers.

3.2.4. Homelessness

Participants were asked if they have ever

experienced homelessness (current or previous).

Figure 6: Homelessness (N = 111)

A total of 17 (15.3%) participants had

experienced homelessness, 13.5% (n = 15)

previous experiences of homelessness, 0.9% (n =

1) currently homeless, and 0.9% (n = 1) both

previous and current homelessness (see Figure

6).

3.2.5. Cause of homelessness

The participants who reported experiencing

homelessness (current or previous; n = 17), were

able to select more than one option to best

reflect the multiplicity of causes that led to their

homelessness.

Figure 7: Cause of homelessness options

selected per participant (N = 17)

Almost one quarter of participants (23.5%, n = 4)

selected one option, 23.5% (n = 4) two options,

17.6% (n = 3) three options, 23.5% (n = 4) five

options, 5.9% (n = 1) six options, and 5.9% (n = 1)

seven options. Most participants 76.5% (n = 13)

selected more than one option as the cause of

their homelessness indicating this is a highly

complex phenomenon (see Figure 7).

Table 10: Cause of homelessness (N = 17)

Cause of homelessness

Financial hardship

70.5

Family rejection/

abandonment

52.9

Mental health

52.9

Unemployment

41.2

Domestic, family and/or

intimate partner

violence

29.4

Rejection from the

people I lived with

29.4

Rental discrimination

(application denied)

23.5

Other

5.9

Own decision

5.9

Substance abuse

5.9

Note. Participants could select more than one

option. The % column reflects the percentage of

the total number of participants (N = 17).

The top four causes of homelessness reported

were 70.5% financial hardship, 52.9% family

rejection/abandonment, 52.9% mental health,

and 41.2% unemployment.

3.3. Discrimination and Harassment

3.3.1. Experiences of discrimination in

Toowoomba

Participants were asked to indicate if they had

experienced discrimination while living in the

Toowoomba region due to identifying as

LGBTQIA+. More than half of the participants

(58.2%, n = 64) reported experiencing

discrimination either within the past 12 months

(29.1%, n = 32), more than 12 months ago (20%,

n = 22) or both (9.1%, n = 10). Just over one

quarter (26.4%, n = 29) had not experienced

100

Current Previous Both No

No. of participants

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 24

discrimination, 12.7% (n = 14) were not sure, and

2.7% (n = 3) preferred not to say.

When considering experiences of discrimination

by gender and sexuality the majority of LGBTQIA+

participants were more likely to experience

discrimination than not (see Figure 8 and Figure

9). The gender identities more likely to

experience discrimination than report no/prefer

not to say were 100% (n = 2) Sistergirls, 83.3% (n

= 5/6) trans men, 68.2% (n = 15/22) cisgender

men, 66.7% (n = 8/12) trans non-binary, 66.7% (n

= 4/6) trans women, and 56.3% (n = 18/32)

cisgender women. The sexual identities more

likely to experience discrimination than report

no/prefer not to say were 75% (n = 9/12)

pansexual+, 73.7% (n = 14/19) queer+, 65% (n =

13/20) gay, 63.6% (n = 7/11) lesbian, and 55.6%

(n = 5/9) queer.

Figure 8: Experiences of discrimination by

gender (N = 107)

Figure 9: Experiences of discrimination by

sexuality (N = 107)

3.3.2. Settings or locations in

Toowoomba where discrimination was

experienced

Participants who responded yes (n = 64) to

experiencing discrimination while living in the

Toowoomba region due to identifying as

LGBTQIA+ were asked to select from a list of

settings/locations where this occurred.

Participants were able to select more than one

option. One fifth of participants (21.9%, n = 14)

selected one option, more than a third (35.6%, n

= 23) two options, 6.3% (n = 4) three options,

14.1% (n = 9) four options, and the remaining

22% (n = 14) selected between 5 to 15 options.

Almost three quarters (71.2%) of responses fell

within seven categories of where discrimination

occurred: 17% workplace; 14% in a public place

within the Toowoomba region; 10.5% educational

setting; 9.2% shopping for goods/services; 8.7%

religious/spiritual setting; 6.1% community

groups; and 5.7% at home.

When considering the locations/settings of

discrimination by gender and sexuality the

reported results are highly complex as shown in

Figure 10 and Figure 11. For gender identity

among the top seven categories with the highest

responses Cisgender men reported the highest

discrimination when shopping for goods/services

(26.3%, n = 5) and at home (30.8%, n = 4);

cisgender women reported the highest

discrimination in the workplace (34.2%, n = 13);

cisgender men and cisgender women equally

reported the highest discrimination in a public

place within the Toowoomba region (23.3%, n = 7

and 23.3%, n = 7, respectively) and

religious/spiritual settings (26.3%, n = 5 and

26.3%, n = 5, respectively); trans-non-binary

participants reported the highest discrimination

in community groups (28.6%, n = 4) and in

educational settings (25%, n = 6). For sexual

identity among the seven categories with the

highest responses queer+ participants reported

the highest discrimination in educational settings

(34.8%, n = 8), in a public place within the

Toowoomba region (32.2%, n = 10), and in

community groups (30.8%, n = 4); gay

participants reported the highest discrimination

in the workplace (23.7%, n = 9) and

religious/spiritual settings (26.3%, n = 5); queer+

and gay participants reported the highest

discrimination when shopping for goods and

services (30%, n = 6 and 30%, n = 6, respectively);

211 1

14 14

31 11 1 1

No. of Participants

Yes No Prefer not to say

1 1

42345

No. of Participants

Yes No Prefer not to say

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 25

and queer+ and bisexual participants reported

the highest discrimination at home (23.3%, n = 3

and 23.3%, n = 3, respectively).

Figure 10: Location and settings of discrimination by gender (N = 62)

Figure 11: Location and settings of discrimination by sexual identity (N = 63)

5.3 3.3 12.5 10.5 5.3 7.1 7.7 20 20

2.6

4.2 5.3 7.7

23.7 23.3

16.7 26.3

26.3 21.4

30.8

18.2

14.3

28.6 16.7

34.2

23.3 12.5

21.1

26.3

14.3

7.7

27.3 28.6

42.9 20

15.8

20 20.8

5.3 10.5

21.4

15.4 18.2

14.3

33.3

15.8

20 25 21.1 15.8 28.6 15.4 36.4

42.9

25 14.3

83.3

33.3 100

6.7 8.3 10.5 10.5 7.1 7.7

2.6 3.3 5.3 7.7

33.3

100

Percentage

Trans man Trans woman Cisgender man Cisgender woman

Non-binary Trans non-binary Sistergirl Not listed

13.2 9.7 8.7 15 15.8 7.7 15.4 20 10

25 12.5

42.9

23.7 22.6 13

30 26.3

23.1 15.4 20 40

25 37.5

28.6

20 20

13.2

3.2 17.4

515.8

7.7

23.1

30 12.5

2.6

3.2

5.3 7.7

33.3

15.8

22.6 8.7

15.8

23.1

15.4 10

12.5

25 14.3

20 20

33.3 100

7.9

3.2

57.7

10 10

33.3

18.4

32.3 34.8 30 21.1 30.8 23.1 10 10

37.5

12.5 14.3

2.6 3.2 4.3

100

Percentage

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Heterosexual Pansexual Pansexual+ Queer Queer+ Asexual

LGBTQIA+ Health and Wellbeing Survey 26

3.3.3. Types of discrimination,

harassment or violence experience in

Toowoomba

Participants who responded yes (n = 64) to

experiencing discrimination while living in the

Toowoomba region due to identifying as

LGBTQIA+ were asked to select from a list of

types of discrimination, harassment or violence

they experienced. Participants were able to select

more than one option. One tenth of participants

(10.9%, n = 7) selected one option, 15.6% (n = 10)

two options, 15.6% (n = 10) three options, 7.8%

(n = 5) four options, 20.3% (n = 13) five options,

10.9% (n = 7) six options, and the remaining

18.9% (n = 12) selected between 7 to 15 options.

The top six types of reported discrimination,

harassment or violence experienced include

verbal abuse (n = 39), bullying (n = 36), being

“outed” (n = 35), unfair treatment (n = 35), social

exclusion (n = 32), and offensive gestures (n = 26;

see Table 11).

Table 11: Types of discrimination, harassment or

violence reported (N = 64)

Safe Connection Toowoomba: Connecting and Supporting LGBTQIA+ Communities

Abstract