Paper short abstract:

In this paper, I show how discourses linked to legitimacy and truth shape LGBTQ refugees' ability to form networks of care. I investigate how certain identities, behaviours, domestic arrangements and ethnic/linguistic affiliations are used to regulate access to social and physical space.

Paper long abstract:

The spectre of 'fake gays' has long been evoked by states to justify invasive and dehumanising treatment of LGBTQ asylum seekers. The goal of bogus claimants, proponents of this narrative argue, is to deceive status adjudicators and exploit Western governments' endorsement of sexual and gender rights. The only protection against this practice is said to be constant vigilance. Depending on one's position in the asylum process, such measures are likely to be seen either as stringent vetting processes or as being guilty, or at best suspicious, until proven otherwise. The social, legislative and political impacts of disbelief have now been well documented, with scholars arguing that heteronormative border regimes not only reinforce stereotypical assumptions about LGBTQ people but also establish a false dichotomy between 'genuine' and 'fraudulent' claimants. What is less studied is how this culture of mistrust permeates LGBTQ refugee communities themselves. In this paper, I show how discourses linked to legitimacy and truth shape LGBTQ refugees' ability to form networks of care and develop a sense of belonging. Drawing on fieldwork undertaken in Nairobi, I argue that decisions over who is worthy of community support produce an additional layer of exclusion for those who already susceptible to violence, abuse and exploitation. In particular, I explore how certain identities, behaviours, domestic arrangements and ethnic/linguistic affiliations are used to determine a person's right to claim protection. Interrogating these micro-level negotiations can provide new insights into how LGBTQ refugees regulate access to social and physical space.