In recent decades, the visibility of LGBTIQA+¹ individuals within global migration trends has increased (Tabak, 2016), with scholars coining the term “sexual migration” to describe the phenomenon of international relocation that is driven, in whole or in part, by the sexuality or gender identity of the migrants (Carrillo, 2004; Usta and Ozbilgin, 2023). Mai and King (2009, p. 296) echo this observation by proposing a “sexual turn” in migration studies, arguing that migrants are “sexual beings expressing, wanting to express, or denied the means to express, their sexual identities.” This highlights the fact that migration is no longer solely driven by economic or political factors, but also by the pursuit of safety and freedom to express one’s sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (or SOGIESC in short). Compared with other migrants, however, individuals who identify as non-heteronormative face an additional layer of complexity in their experiences in the host country (Namer and Razum, 2018). Research consistently indicates that LGBTIQA+ individuals often face discrimination and marginalisation, as well as restricted access to public services (e.g., Albuquerque et al., 2016; Bristol et al., 2018; Clark, 2014; Daley et al., 2017). These multilayered challenges, when coupled with the linguistic and cultural discordances that occur during the process of resettlement in the new country, may amplify their vulnerability.

As early as 1985, Australia became one of the first countries in the world to formally recognise same-sex relationships as a basis for migration (Hart, 2002), a shift that aligned the country’s immigration frameworks with its increasingly inclusive environment and social attitudes towards sexual and gender diversity (Offord, 2001). This shift emerged in parallel with Australia’s broader evolution into a multicultural and more tolerant society, and was an effort to address the growing linguistic and cultural discordances (Hlavac, 2021) resulting from the super diversity of its migrant intake. Although legal frameworks have progressed, and despite the ostensible inclusivity promulgated at policy levels, little attention has been paid to the lived realities of LGBTIQA+ individuals, regardless of whether or not their SOGIESC is a factor in their decisions to migrate, obtain refugee status, or seek asylum. Evidence shows that the experiences of LGBTIQA+ migrants in Australia mirror those of their counterparts in other countries (Dawson, 2016; Forcibly Displaced People Network, 2023; Hill et al., 2020; Migration Council Australia, 2021; Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network, 2023), and include mistreatment in asylum or refugee application processes, challenges in detention centres, and discrimination in employment, education, housing, and access to essential services.

It is essential to recognise that although LGBTIQA+ individuals may migrate in pursuit of safety and opportunities for self-expression, seeking asylum or refugee status is not necessarily the only pathway. Research into queer migration shows that, for sexual minorities, while issues related to asylum seeking often play an important role, the participation of LGBTIQA+ individuals in transnational mobility is driven by a variety of factors that do not always align with the criteria for refugee status. Traditional migration frameworks have often operated under a heteronormative premise, that is, they have assumed that migrants are heterosexual while treating LGBTIQA+ individuals as citizens settled within national borders, consequently overlooking the layered experiences of queer migrants (Luibhéid, 2008). Luibhéid (2008) highlights that a queer individual may be motivated to move across borders by a strong desire for safety, belonging, or self-actualisation. Echoing this, Manalansan and Martin (2006) suggests that sexuality, as well as sexual identities, practises, and desires, can function as vital factors prompting international mobility. Mai and King (2009) further support this by accentuating sexual and emotional motivations as key drivers of migration, noting that migrants often seek spaces where they can live more openly and authentically. These compelling motives, however, typically fall outside the parameters of refugee recognition. Empirical research further corroborates these insights. For example, a study of South Asian gay men in Australia by Smith (2012, p. 92) illustrates how they are driven by “cultural expectations for marriage, social stigma about homosexuality and a lack of private spaces for sexual exploration” in their home countries. These factors, while not always constituting the legal persecution required for refugee or asylum claims, play a significant part in this group’s decisions regarding migration. Collectively, this body of literature offers a more nuanced picture of queer migration—one in which individuals are motivated by a combination of factors related to safety, self-expression, and authentic living.

Ascertaining the exact size of Australia’s LGBTIQA+ population remains a challenge due to a lack of dedicated, large-scale data collection. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) had not collected LGBTIQA+ population data up to the most recent Census, held in 2021, while attempts to include relevant questions in the upcoming (2026) Census still encountered political resistance, with the government stating that it did not want to “open up a divisive debate in relation to this issue” (Linder, 2024b). The government, thus, failed to understand that population-level data can enhance understanding of the health and wellbeing needs of the LGBTIQA+ population, and can facilitate the development of policy and programmes for their communities (Carman et al., 2020). After a community outcry and political revolt, the government reverted its decision, announcing in late August 2024 that it would look to include data on sexual orientation in the 2026 Census (Linder, 2024a). In December 2024 the ABS released its first experimental estimates, that 4.5% of Australians aged 16 and over are LGBTIQA+, a statistic derived from combining data from roughly 45,000 responses to four health surveys (ABS, 2024a,b). However, the government’s own Department of Health has estimated “LGBTI people as representing 11% of the population” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019, p. 5), without explaining how this number was arrived at. By contrast, Aotearoa New Zealand has moved forward in this regard—from its 2023 Census it is able to provide the first confirmed statistics regarding the 4.9% (i.e., almost 1 in 20) of the country’s adults who belong to its rainbow population (Stats NZ, 2024). Similarly, Scotland included voluntary questions about sexuality, trans health and identity in its 2022 Census for the first time (Linder, 2024a), leading to the understanding that 4.0% of people aged 16 and over in Scotland identified as LGBTIQA+ (NRS, 2024). The rest of the United Kingdom had taken the lead in its 2021 Census by asking the same question, thereby gaining the knowledge that the LGBTIQA+ population is 3.2% of the overall population in England and Wales and 2.1% in Northern Ireland (NRS, 2024).

While these recently emerging national data are encouraging, Carman et al. (2020) call for more policy attention and targeted research in Australia, to promote change for equity and inclusion in view of the existing disparities in health, particularly mental health, experienced by LGBTIQA+ community members compared to the rest of the population. It is important to note, though, that these emerging data do not inform the proportion of the LGBTIQA+ population who come from culturally and linguistic diverse (CALD) backgrounds, including refugees and people seeking asylum, in the respective national contexts. This lack of visibility has made addressing the intersectional vulnerability of these community members even more challenging, which, in turn, perpetuates systemic inadequacies in policy and allocation of resources, including appropriate languages services.

The lived experiences of LGBTIQA+ individuals in Australia have begun to attract interest, although still on a relatively limited scale, amongst researchers (Asquith et al., 2019; Grant et al., 2021; Hughes and King, 2018; Saxby, 2022), government bodies (Hill et al., 2020) and non-governmental organisations (Carman et al., 2020). A prominent focus is the health and wellbeing (Amos et al., 2023; Grant and Nash, 2019; Hallett et al., 2024), especially mental health (Bond et al., 2017; Istiko et al., 2024), of LGBTIQA+ individuals. For example, findings from longitudinal studies such as La Trobe University’s Private Lives 3 Survey highlight that gender diverse individuals are disproportionately affected by mental health burdens, including higher rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts (Hill et al., 2020). Parallel research identifies and critiques barriers to service access, revealing how heteronormative assumptions and/or lack of LGBTIQA+ awareness or cultural competence amongst service providers often prevent effective support (Cronin et al., 2021; Hughes, 2009; Lim et al., 2022). Other research trajectories include policy analysis (Pienaar et al., 2018), the experiences and support needs of LGBTIQA+ students in higher education (Waling and Roffee, 2017, 2018), and the interactions of LGBTIQA+ individuals with law enforcement (Dwyer et al., 2015; Dwyer et al., 2022).

In contrast, research into the experiences of LGBTIQA+ migrants in Australia remains sparse, with only isolated studies on refugees or asylum seekers (Aiyar, 2020; Noto et al., 2014). When these individuals lack English proficiency, they often need to rely on language mediation to access public services. Even less is known about these communicative settings in relation to the efficacy of the language services provided and received. Interpreting in these encounters is highly challenging, as it must not only bridge linguistic and cultural discordances as in other public service contexts, but also convey SOGIESC issues when they emerge with sensitivity and respect, in both English and the language other than English (LOTE). Interpreters are not the authors of the utterances they interpret, and therefore may encounter ethical dilemmas in their level of intervention in such situations. They may also lack training and professional development in this topic area, and therefore—whether knowingly or unknowingly—perpetuate their own values or prejudices in their language output, thereby potentially harming the LGBTIQA+ individual receiving the service. The current study set out to address this gap in knowledge by exploring mediated communication in settings involving LGBTIQA+ individuals in Australia, examining the topic from the interpreter’s perspective with the intention of providing insights and recommendations.

Australia has relatively advanced language service infrastructure compared to most other countries that operate similar migration and humanitarian intake programmes. Community interpreting is publicly funded in Australia, so it is provided at no cost to community members who are not proficient in English but need to access public services such as for healthcare, welfare support and legal matters. According to Australia’s National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI), the national standards and certifying authority, there are 9,365 individual practitioners holding 13,942 NAATI certification credentials in 184 languages (NAATI, 2024). Although there are no direct statistics, it is reasonable to deduce that of Australia’s 25.4 million population (ABS, n.d.), those born overseas (just over 7 million, or 27.6%), or who speak a LOTE at home (5.8 million, or 22.8%) (ABS, 2022) would be the main users of interpreting and translating services. Practitioners must abide by a code of ethics and code of conduct issued by the professional association in the country, the Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT) (see https://ausit.org/code-of-ethics/). Credentialled interpreters in Australia mostly operate as freelancers, registering with multiple language service providers, which are a mixture of private for-profit and government-owned businesses. In principle, public services must use NAATI-certified interpreters (Department of Social Service, n.d.). However, uncertified interpreters are still engaged, either due to shortages of credentialled interpreters in certain languages, or as a shortcut or means to save money in “low-risk situations” (Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, 2016, p. 14), and there are still services which opt for using family members or non-trained bilingual persons whose LOTE proficiency is unverified, or even attempt to get by with minimal English spoken by the service receiver, due to a lack of either funding or appreciation of the importance of professional interpreting services.

This study employed an exploratory, qualitative research design to investigate mediated communication for LGBTIQA+ migrants in Australian public service contexts from the interpreter’s perspective. Our decision to focus on interpreters as research participants was made based on both theoretical and methodological considerations. As people who straddle two epistemological spheres, i.e., those of migrant experiences and institutional service provision, interpreters’ unique professional role as strangers who are both “far” and “near” (Simmel, 1950) affords them the opportunity to be witnesses, observing patterns of possible oppression and communication barriers in private, often sensitive communications which are typically inaccessible to researchers. The current researchers’ existing professional networks conveniently provided access to potential interpreter participants who could answer the research questions. Methodologically, this approach circumvented the challenges of identifying and recruiting LGBTIQA+ migrants, who may understandably be reluctant to “out themselves.” We also took into account the potential risk of re-traumatisation when speaking directly to queer participants, particularly if they continue to face discrimination in Australia, where they have settled.

The study was conducted within a larger project in which an LGBTIQA+ terminology repository was constructed to house translations into multiple community languages, using a critical social perspective (Bloomberg and Volpe, 2012; Dunk-West and Saxton, 2024) to create the language resources (see www.rainbowterminology.org). The current study intended to gain understanding about intersectional adversities experienced by queer migrants through insights and perspectives contributed by interpreters as communication mediators in public service encounters where they had to navigate linguistic and cultural discordances. The aim was to identify issues encountered by interpreters in their practice for the purpose of enhancing the language services ultimately received by their LGBTIQA+ clients. Ethics approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee at RMIT University where the researchers are based.

One-on-one interviews was chosen as the data collection method, and a purposive sampling strategy was employed to recruit professional interpreters who had both NAATI credentials and first-hand experience interpreting for LGBTIQA+ clients in a community setting (e.g., healthcare, legal, social services). Recruitment letters were distributed electronically through various interpreter deployment agencies and two professional organisations, AUSIT and NAATI, calling for expressions of interest (EOIs) to participate in online interviews.

Submitted EOIs were then screened by a research assistant to confirm self-reported eligibility, and those who were deemed qualified were contacted to schedule individual online interviews. A total of 24 interpreters took part in this study, representing 12 different languages: Mandarin (n = 7), Persian/Farsi (n = 4), Spanish (n = 2), Tamil (n = 2), Turkish (n = 2), Australian Sign Language (or Auslan in short) (n = 1), French (n = 1), Lao (n = 1²), Malay (n = 1), Romanian (n = 1), Russian (n = 1), and Thai (n = 1). This sample size was deemed sufficient to capture a broad range of linguistic and cultural contexts in Australia, while allowing for thematic saturation. Table 1 presents the assigned reference codes for each participant alongside their corresponding language profiles. All participants provided informed consent and received information on confidentiality measures prior to the interviews.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted online via Microsoft Teams. An interview guide (see Appendix 1) was developed to elicit responses on participants’ interpreting experiences pertinent to LGBTIQA+ topics, focusing particularly on the challenges they encountered and the strategies they employed to achieve best language service quality. The researchers divided the interview load amongst them, and were mindful that the listed questions were meant to serve as a guide for the conversation to flow organically. Voluntary contributions from participants were welcome, and the researchers took care not to stifle them. Interview length ranged from approximately 30 to 70 min. With participants’ consent, interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed for the purposes of analysis. All participant identifiers were removed and replaced with reference codes as shown in Table 1 to protect their privacy.

As the study was exploratory in nature, inductive coding for thematic analysis was employed to identify meaning units from which key themes were categorised. Guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006, p. 87) six-step framework, we first read through the transcripts to achieve familiarity with the data. Next, initial codes were generated to represent ideas or patterns that appeared repeatedly. These codes were then grouped into broader categories or themes reflecting communication challenges and barriers to self-expression. Following this, we reviewed and refined these themes, ensuring that they are coherent and make sense in relation to the overall dataset. The final step involved defining and labelling each theme to highlight its distinct contribution to the understanding of the data.

These semi-structured interviews with participant interpreters elicited a mixture of their contributions on SOGIESC as people who shared the same cultural backgrounds as their LGBTIQA+ clients, as well as their first-hand experience in facilitating communication for these clients in various government service contexts. In this section, we will present two themes (1A and 2A) derived from the former to set the sociocultural contexts which these LGBTIQA+ individuals have left (i.e., their homelands) and found themselves in (i.e., diasporic ethnic communities in Australia). Then we will outline the three main parameters (1B, 2B and 3B) in relation to the challenges participant interpreters shared when working with LGBTIQA+ individuals. Further sub-themes will be presented under the main parameters, to illustrate the various nuanced challenges embedded within interpreters’ professional practise. The encounters, as reported by participant interpreters, spanned a diverse range of services in which highly sensitive or personal information was frequently shared. They included legal and asylum cases (e.g., Administrative Appeals Tribunals to decide asylum claims, legal consultations in refugee detention centres, court proceedings, communications in police stations, and visa applications), medical and mental health services (e.g., general or specialist medical appointments, hospital visits, sexual and reproductive health consultations, and counselling sessions), and social welfare and support services for victims of torture.

In the last section we first outlined the dominant sociocultural attitudes towards diverse SOGIESC in LOTE contexts, drawing on the contributions from participant interpreters, then we identified the key challenges these interpreters faced when working with LGBTIQA+ migrants—challenges which spanned linguistic, cultural, and psychological spheres. In this section we present insights from participant interpreters on the possible avenues for improving the status quo, and draw conclusions where appropriate.

The three spheres of linguistic challenges identified—complexities of gender pronouns, LGBTIQA+ specific terminology and jargon, and the lack of equivalent concepts or expressions—collectively point to the need for multilingual resources and targeted training and education for interpreters who work with LGBTIQA+ migrants, to enhance their understanding of the nuances around gender diversity and ability in using appropriate language. This necessary course of action is no different from those in other contextual areas in which interpreters work— such as legal or health care—in that they must be trained and become competent in using the relevant terminology for the domain, in both English and LOTE. On the other hand, intersectionality of gender diversity, sexual migration, displacement, and sociocultural conditioning—in both home and diasporic communities—makes working in this domain challenging in a unique way.

As highlighted by several participant interpreters, a standardised LGBTIQA+ glossary could serve as a practical starting point. One interpreter noted:

In many instances, interpreters may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with using emerging terms related to gender or sexual identity, fearing embarrassment or mistakes, particularly when there is a lack of direct equivalence in their working languages. Even with more established terms, different interpreters may use different expressions in the same LOTE, thereby creating confusion. A standardised glossary that provides clear definitions and authoritative translations could bridge this gap and help interpreters achieve linguistic accuracy and consistency. However, as was noted in Sub-theme 1.2B, LGBTIQA+ terminology is fluid and ever evolving; financial and human resources are therefore required for a sustainable solution. The www.rainbowterminology.org project in which the current authors have been involved in is a case in point. Substantial funding was secured to establish the multilingual resources website, which contains a selection of 139 English LGBTIQA+ terms, their definitions, and their translations into eight target languages. Further funding is being sought to ensure that expansion of language coverage, ongoing site maintenance, and terminological updates can continue.

Simply establishing a customised LGBTIQA+ glossary, however, is not enough, as “Glossary is hard to use out of context” (MAN-1). In this sense, targeted training is thought to be of more assistance.

MAN-1 further suggested that “There should be workshops for practitioners with scenarios, so they can practise using them in a supportive learning environment.” This is concurred by MAN-5, who stated “Seminars for interpreters working in the field [would be helpful]. Having the glossary available, they can have a discussion, talk about their experience and exchange ideas.” Although currently there is no systematic training available, awareness of the importance is gathering momentum. For example, Sydney Local Health District, funded by the New South Wales state government’s dedicated LGBTIQA+ Health Funding Pool (2023–25), embarked on a project to develop and deliver training and resources for healthcare interpreters working in their system, aiming to “build their knowledge of the healthcare needs of LGBTIQA+ clients and to increase confidence in providing appropriate, safe and informed interpreting” (NSW Health, n.d.). Further, in 2023, eight webinars and twelve in-person workshops on inclusive and respectful communication involving LGBTIQA+ clients were delivered via a collaboration between AUSIT and ACON (formerly the AIDS Council of NSW) to a total of 540 interpreters and translators, funded by Multicultural New South Wales Health. In 2024–25, a further ten in-person workshops on interpreting for LGBTIQA+ refugees and asylum seekers—funded by Pride Foundation Australia and coordinated by the lead author of this paper—were delivered in three Australian states to a total of 122 practitioners. Under the same project, a free self-paced online training course containing five modules have also been developed, which is expected to be launched later in 2025. These initiatives have responded to practitioners’ need to learn more about the topic, and their appreciation of the important role they play in various service contexts involving queer clients.

Beyond achieving competence in the linguistic aspects of the LGBTIQA+-related domain, interpreters must appreciate the perspectives and lived experiences of LGBTIQA+ migrants in order to ensure that their interpreting is sensitive and respectful. This is, again, more likely to be achieved through targeted training and professional development, as is suggested by FRE-1:

The value of hearing lived experiences from the LGBTIQA+ community is concurred by another interpreter:

Indeed, interactions with LGBTIQA+ individuals provide interpreters with opportunities to gain insights into appropriate language use and improve their ability to facilitate respectful interactions. Participant interpreters pointed out that some of their colleagues may hold deep-rooted biases themselves, and that this could prevent them from providing respectful and appropriate interpreting. Gaining first-hand insights from LGBTIQA+ community members can serve as a crucial step towards breaking that bias. It may prompt interpreters to reflect on and challenge any internalised assumptions or misconceptions they hold.

In line with this perspective, SPA-1 calls for gender perspective training for interpreters:

This resonates with the scholarship on feminist and queer translation practises (Castro and Ergun, 2017) which challenges language practitioners to reflect on how language can enforce or contest dominant gender and sexual norms, and how that affects marginalised identities. As observed by SPA-1, language is not a neutral medium, in that it actively shapes how people perceive and are perceived by others. In a similar vein, interpreting is also not a neutral, disinterested mediation activity (Baker, 2013), but rather, it plays a vital part in constructing knowledge, identities and culturally specific understanding (Castro and Ergun, 2017), reflecting Simmel’s (1908) conception of the “stranger” joining a triad and the possible outcome of dissolution vs. consolidation, or conflict vs. appeasement. The current authors would note, though, that diversity trainers with lived experience will be good candidates to engage, and caution should be exercised not to place undue burden on LGBTIQA+ community members to “educate” the “uneducated.” The inevitable reality of outing oneself when accepting such an engagement should also be borne in mind; sensitivity should be strictly exercised when approaching individuals, so they do not feel pressured; and both complete voluntariness and fair compensation for their time and effort are not negotiable.

Apart from targeted training and professional development on LGBTIQA+ vocabulary, gender perspective, and inclusive language use, several participant interpreters raised the importance of pre-assignment briefings to include information about the client’s gender identity when the assignment needs such information to be successful, for example, in sexual health or counselling settings. This would allow interpreters with strong biases to opt out, preventing disrespectful or harmful interactions from taking place. For example:

Further, using appropriate pronouns and respectful language in relevant service contexts provides validation to the queer client, and this is conducive to fostering their sense of safety and aiding the smooth flow of subsequent communication. As PER-2 said:

The importance of briefings for interpreters has long been recognised, in that they improve accuracy and efficacy of interpreting (Díaz Galaz, 2011; Hale, 2013) by enabling the interpreter to research and practise LGBTIQA+ terms beforehand, reducing the risk of miscommunication. On the other hand, it should also be noted that interpreters need to navigate these interactions with heightened sensitivity, in order to avoid “outing” clients or violating their privacy, when such information is not of concern in the encounter if, for any reason, the interpreter comes to possess that information.

It is important to acknowledge that our study took place in the Australian context, reporting on challenges faced by interpreters mediating communication for queer migrants in an English-dominant service environment. We recognise that there may appear to be an underlying suggestion in our findings that the English language is a more effective option for expressing diverse identities and discussing LGBTIQA+ experiences. English, however, is not a neutral medium but, rather, an embodiment of cultural and ideological domination, connected to colonial and racialised hierarchies (Pennycook, 1994, 1998; Phillipson, 1992, 2010). Research in lavender—that is, queer—linguistics demonstrates that a wide range of languages offer well-developed terminologies and conceptual frameworks for understanding diverse gender and sexual identities (e.g., Cage, 2003; Hart and Hart, 1990; Stief, 2017; Ulla et al., 2024). We fully recognise this linguistic richness and do not wish to dismiss its significance. Rather, our recommendation for a standardised English glossary of LGBTIQA+ terms with consistent definitions and translations is motivated by practical considerations based on the specific challenges identified by our participants. The interpreters in our study reported lacking foundational knowledge of queer issues and experiences, which could lead to tension or conflicts in the communicative encounters and hinder effective, dignified service delivery. In light of this, our proposed glossary is intended to serve as a pragmatic tool in addressing these immediate professional needs within the Australian service context. Future research would benefit from examining the dynamics of interpreter-mediated communication for LGBTIQA+ migrants in other geographical locations with different institutionally dominant languages, migration policies, public service infrastructure, and sociocultural attitudes towards queer individuals.

Another limitation of this study is that it relied solely on the perspectives of interpreters, without incorporating the voices of LGBTIQA+ migrants, nor those of the service providers. Although the current researchers are fully cognisant that queer migrants should not unfairly bear the burden of “educating the uneducated,” where they may out themselves or be re-traumatised in the process of contributing to this area of research; there should be scope for future studies that are carefully designed and respectfully conducted. While interpreters bear witness to the challenges faced by queer migrants as a result of cultural and linguistic discordances, their contributions cannot fully reflect queer individuals’ lived experiences, communication struggles, or satisfaction level with services received from both interpreters and public service providers. Similarly, the study did not canvas the perspectives of public service providers who are on the other receiving end of the mediated communication. They may be able to provide further assessment of the effectiveness of communication, facilitating data triangulation to identify gaps between interpreting strategies and clients’ needs. Ultimately, only when all viewpoints from the communication triad are properly accounted for can comprehensive improvement be achieved for all parties involved.