Integritus Prime

As a coach who works with members of marginalized LGBTQIA+ communities, I am always on the lookout for new and integrated approaches to inclusion. I recently attended a webinar in which a new Pacific Women Lead guidance note, Many Petals, One Whole Bloom: Strengthening SOGIESC Inclusion in the Pacific, was discussed. SOGIESC stands for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics. The acronym refers to the diversity of our human reality when it comes to gender and sexuality. The guidance note offers something deeply important: a Pacific-led framework grounded in our realities, our histories, and our ways of making change.

What stood out to me most is that this publication does not treat SOGIESC inclusion as a side issue or a donor check box. Instead, it makes clear that gender justice in the Pacific must include all women and all people in their diversity — and that doing this well requires courage, cultural intelligence, partnership, and practical resourcing.

Here are my three biggest takeaways.

1. Pacific-led matters. One of the most powerful things about this guidance note is that it is from the Pacific, for the Pacific: it is based on over a hundred data points from Pacific people, and co-authored by Pacific members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Too often, inclusion frameworks arrive shaped by Australian, New Zealand, or broader international assumptions, then get awkwardly applied to Pacific contexts. This document does the opposite: it begins with the understanding that people of diverse SOGIESC have always existed in Pacific societies, and that our own cultural histories, languages, and identities must be central to any meaningful inclusion work. That matters because context matters. One example given was that the realities facing a lesbian in an iTaukei settlement, a fa’afafine in Samoa, or a queer person navigating justice systems in a different island setting are not interchangeable. Good intentions are not enough. We need localised tools, local leadership, and culturally grounded approaches that reflect the diversity of Pacific life. This is what makes the guidance note so valuable: it does not start from abstraction. It starts from home.
2. Social and structural barriers must be acknowledged. A second key strength of the document is that it does not pretend SOGIESC inclusion is simply about better language or more visibility. It names the deeper structural barriers: colonial legal legacies, social stigma, and the powerful role of religion and culture in shaping what is seen as acceptable or criminal. The note reminds us that several Pacific countries still retain laws criminalizing same-sex relationships, and that even where those laws are not actively enforced, they continue to reinforce fear, exclusion, and silence. What I appreciated from the webinar discussion is the insistence that this complexity must be met not with imported scripts, but with indigeneity-based approaches. In Samoa, for example, Alex Su’a spoke about how conversations can shift when issues are framed not through externally imposed labels alone, but through culturally grounded concepts such as fa’afafine and through Pacific ways of dialogue such as talanoa. That is such an important lesson: legal reform matters, but hearts, minds, and institutions often move through culturally resonant conversation, not just policy language. The note connects inclusion to human rights, safeguarding, violence prevention, and access to justice.
3. Resourcing and partnership are critical. The third highlight for me is the document’s quiet but clear message: inclusion cannot happen on goodwill alone. If Pacific SOGIESC organisations and leaders are expected to guide this work, they must be resourced, respected, and treated as experts rather than afterthoughts. The webinar commentary was especially strong on this point, with speakers naming the reality that much of the queer organising in the Pacific is still underfunded, informal, and too often treated as voluntary labour rather than essential movement work. This is where both legal and institutional frameworks matter. Laws, constitutions, court interpretations, policies, and donor systems all shape whether inclusion becomes real or remains rhetorical. But just as important is the quality of partnership. The note’s principle of reciprocity and partnership is one of its most valuable contributions: consultation is not enough if it ends there. Meaningful partnership means shared design, fair remuneration, accountability, trust-building, and a willingness by donors and institutions to ask not just “How can CSOs help us?” but also “How are we serving their mandates, their safety, and their communities?”, said Dr. Emily Rudland of DFAT.

What makes Many Petals, One Whole Bloom so important is that it offers both principles and practical pathways. It is grounded, thoughtful, and unapologetically Pacific. Most of all, it reminds us that inclusion is not about adding one more issue to an already crowded agenda. It is about building a Pacific future in which gender justice is genuinely expansive, relational, and whole. And that is exactly the kind of work worth doing.

Share with me your perspectives on SOGIESC in the Pacific, or wherever you call home.