LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Ligestillingsudvalget 2019-20
LIU Alm.del Bilag 77
Offentligt

EU-LGBTI II

A long way to go

for LGBTI equality

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Printed by Bietlot in Belgium

Photos: © FRA

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

PDF

ISBN 978-92-9474-967-3

ISBN 978-92-9474-968-0

doi:10.2811/17374

doi:10.2811/348583

TK-02-20-297-EN-C

TK-02-20-297-EN-N

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under FRA’s copyright, permission must be sought

directly from the copyright holders.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go

for LGBTI equality

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Country codes

Country code

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czechia

Germany

Denmark

Estonia

Greece

Spain

Finland

France

Croatia

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

North Macedonia

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Serbia

Sweden

Slovakia

Slovenia

United Kingdom

Country

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Foreword

Imagine being afraid to hold your loved one’s hand in public, skipping office banter to avoid divulging with whom you

share your life, choosing the long way home to side-step potentially hostile ground, or enduring ridicule every time

you show your personal identification. In the year 2020, these remain realities for all too many lesbian, gay, bisexual,

trans and intersex people across the European Union and beyond.

This report presents select findings from our 2019 survey on LGBTI people in the EU and North Macedonia and Ser-

bia. With almost 140,000 participants, it is the largest survey of its kind. It follows the agency’s first survey on LGBT

people in the EU, conducted in 2012.

The results show little progress over the past seven years. More people are open about being LGBTI – but a majority

still avoid holding their partner’s hand in public. They may have good reason to be discreet. Among those who are very

open about being LGBTI, 40 % say they experienced harassment. Physical or sexual attacks also remain a concern:

one in ten survey participants say they were targets of such violence in the five years before the survey.

Meanwhile, everyday discrimination persists. LGBTI individuals encounter it at work and at school; at cafés, restaurants,

bars and nightclubs; when looking for housing; when accessing healthcare or social services; and in shops. Especially

for trans and intersex people, identification documents that specify a sex can trigger ridicule.

FRA’s large-scale surveys show, over and over again, that victims of discrimination and abuse are reluctant to report

incidents. LGBTI people are no exception. Reporting rates are low for all types of organisations, but especially so for

the police.

The results make clear that trans and intersex people face an even more uphill struggle. And the young? The survey

gives reason for both concern and cautious optimism. Participants aged 15 to 17 experienced more harassment than

their older peers. Yet they also say they see more individuals standing up for LGBTI people at school – and hear more

talk of LGBTI issues in educational settings.

There are striking differences between countries. But whether they live in countries that shine or have serious prob-

lems, survey participants underline that law and policy, as well as behaviour by politicians, public figures, community

leaders and civil society, greatly affect their lives.

We hope this reality encourages policy- and decision-makers at all levels to do what they can to promote full respect

for the rights of LGBTI people across the entire EU.

Michael O’Flaherty

Director

Contents

FOREWORD �½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½ 3

WHY IS THIS SURVEY NEEDED? �½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½ 7

THE SURVEY IN A NUTSHELL �½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½ 8

ASSESSING PROGRESS: SELECTED RESULTS �½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½ 10

KEY FINDINGS AND FRA OPINIONS �½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½ 17

WHAT DO THE RESULTS SHOW? �½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½ 23

2.1.

Living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or intersex person .................................................................. 23

2.1.1.

2.1.2.

2.1.3.

2.2.

2.2.1.

Openness in everyday life .......................................................................................................................... 23

Life satisfaction ............................................................................................................................................ 28

Freedom of movement: same sex couples and families ...................................................................... 28

Employment .................................................................................................................................................. 31

Experiencing and reporting discrimination – awareness of victim support .................................................... 31

2.2.2. Other areas of life ......................................................................................................................................... 32

2.2.3. Intersectional and multiple discrimination ............................................................................................... 35

2.2.4. Reporting discrimination ............................................................................................................................. 35

2.2.5. Awareness of organisations providing victim support ........................................................................... 35

2.3.

Hate-motivated violence and harassment ........................................................................................................... 38

2.3.1.

Physical or sexual attacks .......................................................................................................................... 39

2.3.2. Harassment ................................................................................................................................................... 42

2.3.3. Reporting violence and harassment ........................................................................................................ 46

2.3.4. Avoiding certain locations – feelings of safety ....................................................................................... 48

2.4. The situation of intersex persons ........................................................................................................................... 51

2.4.1. Main challenges faced by intersex persons ............................................................................................. 52

2.4.2. Informed consent for medical treatments or interventions .................................................................. 53

2.4.3. Determination and awareness of sex characteristics ............................................................................ 55

2.4.4. Obstacles to registering civil status in public documents ...................................................................... 55

ANNEX: METHODOLOGY �½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½�½ 57

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Figures and tables

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Figure 10:

Figure 11:

Figure 12:

Figure 13:

Figure 14:

Figure 15:

Figure 16:

Figure 17:

Figure 18:

Figure 19:

Figure 20:

Figure 21:

Figure 22:

Figure 23:

Figure 24:

Figure 25:

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Respondents who felt discriminated against due to being LGBT when looking for work in the 12

months before the survey (2012 and 2019), EU-28 and by group (%) ................................................................. 11

Respondents who felt discriminated against at work due to being LGBT in the last 12 months

before the survey (2012 and 2019), EU-28 and by group (%) ................................................................................ 11

LGBTI respondents who think the government in the country they live in combats effectively

prejudice and intolerance against LGBTI people (2019) ........................................................................................ 14

Respondents who say that, during their time in school, someone supported, defended or

protected them and their rights as L,G,B,T or I person, by age group (EU-28, Serbia and North

Macedonia)(%) .............................................................................................................................................................. 15

Respondents who say their school education at some point addressed LGBTI issues, by age

group (EU-28, %) .......................................................................................................................................................... 16

Respondents’ levels of openness about being LGBTI, by group and country (%) ............................................ 24

Respondents who avoid holding same-sex partner’s hands in public for fear of being assaulted,

threatened or harassed, by group and country (%) .............................................................................................. 26

Respondents who avoid certain places or locations for fear of being assaulted, threatened or

harassed because they are LGBTI, by group (%) .................................................................................................... 27

Respondents aged 15–17 who are very open, selectively open or who hide being LGBTI at

school in EU-28, by group (%) ................................................................................................................................... 27

Average life satisfaction of LGBTI respondents (2019 data) and general population (2016 data)

on scale from 0 to 10, averages by country ............................................................................................................ 29

Respondents who felt discriminated against due to being LGBTI in area other than employment

in the 12 months before survey in EU-28, by area of life and group (%) ........................................................... 34

Reporting the most recent incident of discrimination, by country and group (%) ........................................... 36

Reasons for not reporting the most recent incident of discrimination, EU-28+2 (%) ....................................... 37

Experiencing a physical and/or sexual attack for being LGBTI, in the five years before the survey (%) ..... 40

Two most mentioned forms of impact on health and well-being of physical or sexual attacks,

by type of incident and group (EU-28, %) ............................................................................................................... 43

Harassment experienced due to being LGBTI, in the 12 months before the survey (%) ................................. 44

Harassment experienced due to being LGBTI, by age group and harassment type, in the 12

months before the survey (EU-28, %) ...................................................................................................................... 45

Reporting most recent harassment incident and physical or sexual attack (in five years before

survey) to any organisation (incl. police) and specifically to police (EU-28, %) ............................................... 47

Reporting to the police the most recent physical or sexual attack due to being LGBTI, in five

years before the survey (%) ...................................................................................................................................... 48

Not reporting most recent physical or sexual attack due to being LGBTI to the police, out of fear

of homophobic and/or transphobic reaction, in five years before survey (%) ................................................. 49

Respondents who ‘often’ or ‘always’ avoid certain places or locations for fear of being

assaulted, threatened or harassed due to being LGBTI (%) ................................................................................. 50

Biggest problems intersex people face in the country they live in .................................................................... 53

Intersex respondents who say neither they nor their parents gave fully informed consent

before first medical treatment or intervention to modify their sex characteristics ........................................ 54

How the variation in the intersex respondents’ sex characteristics was determined .................................... 55

Obstacles faced by intersex respondents when registering civil status or gender in public documents .... 56

Respondents who felt discriminated against due to being LGBTI when looking for work in the

12 months before the survey (%) ............................................................................................................................. 32

Respondents who felt discriminated against due to being LGBTI at work in the 12 months

before the survey (%) ................................................................................................................................................. 33

Unweighted sample size by country and by LGBTI group and the distribution of the national

samples between LGBTI groups ................................................................................................................................ 58

Self-reported trans identities, unweighted (EU-28, %) ......................................................................................... 60

Age of survey respondents, by LGBTI group, unweighted (EU-28, %) ............................................................... 62

Highest completed level of education of the survey respondents, by LGBTI group, unweighted

(EU-28, %) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 63

Self-reported household’s difficulty to make ends meet, by LGBTI group, unweighted (EU-28, %) ............. 63

Economic activity status, by LGBTI group, unweighted (EU-28, %) .................................................................... 64

Place of residence, by LGBTI group, unweighted (EU-28, %) ............................................................................... 65

Respondents who consider themselves to belong to a minority, by LGBTI group, unweighted

(EU-28, %) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 65

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Why is this survey

needed?

Sexual orientation and gender identity are aspects of

who we are. No one should feel a need to conceal their

identity to avoid discrimination, hate or even violence.

But, in the European Union today, many LGBTI indi-

viduals still feel the need to do so. FRA’s new survey

results give policymakers the necessary data to devise

targeted measures to ensure the respect of the funda-

mental rights of LGBTI people across the Union.

The principle of equal treatment is a fundamental value

of the European Union, clearly expressed in Article 2

of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and Art-

icle 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Euro-

pean Union. Over the past two decades, the European

Union (EU), the Council of Europe (CoE) and the United

Nations (UN) have developed or strengthened stand-

ards on non-discrimination and equality for LGBTI peo-

ple. Sexual orientation, as well as gender identity and

expression, were recognised increasingly as grounds of

discrimination in EU and national law.

first ever conclusions on LGBTI equality, also calling on

FRA to “study the situation of LGBTI people by compil-

ing high-quality statistics based on the most reliable

methods”.

The agency launched the second wave of its survey –

the EU-LGBTI II survey – in 2019. This time, it includes

intersex people and participants aged 15 to 17. Its cov-

erage also extends to two candidate countries, Serbia

and North Macedonia. In 2012, 93,079 respondents par-

ticipated. In 2019, 139,799 did so, providing a wealth of

information comparable across countries.

Supporting effective

policymaking

This report outlines selected findings from the new sur-

vey. It complements the Commission’s annual report

on the impact of its ‘List of actions to advance LGBTI

equality’. In so doing, it provides policymakers and leg-

islators with much needed evidence on progress made

in the EU, as well as in the candidate countries of North

Macedonia and Serbia.

The evidence produced by the survey provides unique

insights necessary to assess reliably the implementa-

tion and impact of EU law on the ground as it relates to

LGBTI persons. This includes, for example, the Direc-

tive for equal treatment in employment and occupation

(2000/78/EC), the Directive on the implementation of

the principle of equal opportunities and equal treat-

ment of men and women in matters of employment

and occupation (recast) (2006/54/EC), and the Victims’

Rights Directive (2012/29/EU).

The EU can use the findings to explore what further

legal and policy measures would more effectively pro-

tect and promote the rights of LGBTI people, including

in areas where existing law appears to be ineffectually

implemented. Member States are strongly encouraged

to use the country results, and to compare them with

other EU countries, to assess the impact of their national

legal and policy framework and, in turn, consider how

best to improve it. In this regard, the agency provides its

own independent opinions that outline areas for action.

online data explorer

accompanies this report and

provides more data from the survey results.

Responding to a need for data

The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) contrib-

uted to these developments through legal and social

analysis. It persistently highlighted the paucity of

comparable statistical data (see box on relevant pub-

lications). EU institutions and civil society have also

increasingly called for comparable data on the human

rights situation of LGBT people across the EU.

In response, FRA in 2012 launched the then-largest

EU-wide survey, delivering for the first time compara-

ble data on how LGBT people experience their human

and fundamental rights in daily life. Since then, sev-

eral Member States have put in place legal and policy

measures providing better protection for the rights of

LGBTI people.

European institutions recognised the importance of

that survey. In 2015, the European Commission ‘List of

Actions to advance LGBTI Equality’ invited FRA to repeat

its survey in 2019. In June 2016, the Council adopted the

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

The survey in

a nutshell

A total of 139,799 persons aged 15 years or older who

describe themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or

intersex (LGBTI) completed the online EU-LGBTI II Sur-

vey

in all EU Member States and the candidate coun-

tries of North Macedonia and Serbia.

being LGBTI, positive and negative experiences at work

and in education, socio-economic and living conditions,

health and well-being, and housing issues.

The findings are based on data weighted to take into

account differences in the estimated size of each LGBTI

group in each survey country and by age group, based

on information on the LGBTI population from previous

LGBTI surveys in the EU. In addition, the data were

weighted taking into account the respondents’ affili-

ation with LGBTI organisations and whether they have

participated in other LGBTI surveys (including FRA’s

LGBT survey of 2012). This was done to correct for

possible over-representation of respondents closely

affiliated with LGBTI organisations and with a higher

propensity to participate in LGBTI surveys.

Who are the LGBTI survey

respondents?

Lesbian women (women sexually and/or emotion-

ally attracted to women)

Gay men (men sexually and/or emotionally attract-

ed to men)

Bisexual people (those emotionally and/or sexually

attracted to persons of more than one gender)

Trans people (those whose gender identity or gen-

der expression does not fully correspond to the sex

assigned to them at birth)

Intersex people (born with sex characteristics that

do not strictly belong to the male or female catego-

ries or belong to both. These characteristics may

be chromosomal, hormonal and/or anatomical and

may be present to differing degrees). This is the

first time FRA surveyed this group.

The LGB categories cover respondents who self-identi-

fied as lesbian women, gay men and bisexual women or

men – with the exception of those who also identified

as trans or intersex, as they are included in the trans

and intersex categories, respectively.

Comparing results from the

and 2

survey waves

Online surveys do not always allow direct comparabil-

ity of all their results over time. Therefore, the results

presented here are compared with respect to differ-

ences in selected indicators between the 2012 and 2019

surveys, where possible.

FR A developed comparable datasets for the

2012 and 2019 surveys. For comparisons, the agency

used only data for LGBT persons aged 18 and above

from the 2019 survey. FRA excluded the intersex cat-

egory, which was not surveyed in 2012, as well as

respondents from Serbia and North Macedonia and

LGBTI adolescents aged 15 to 17. The agency also applied

appropriate weighting methods.

Focus on LGBTI people in the EU

Several FRA publications address the situation of

LGBTI people in the EU. These include:

Professionally Speaking: Challenges for achieving

equality for LGBT people

(2016)

Protection against discrimination on grounds of

sexual orientation, gender identity and sex char-

acteristics in the EU – Comparative legal analysis –

Update (2015)

The fundamental rights situation of intersex peo-

ple (2015)

Being Trans in the EU (2014)

Opinion on the situation of equality in the Euro-

pean Union 10 years on from initial implementa-

tion of the equality directives

(2013)

EU LGBT Survey – Main results (2013)

These publications are available on FRA’s

website.

How was the survey

carried out?

The survey was conducted online

from 27 May to

22 July 2019. Its questionnaire covered a wide range of

issues, such as experiences with discrimination, harass-

ment or violence, rights awareness, openness about

The

Annex

provides more information on the survey

methodology and the composition of the sample and its

characteristics. FRA will also publish a Technical Report in

2020. This will provide more detailed information, including

on FRA’s weighting approach.

Serbia and North Macedonia were surveyed as candidate

countries who are observers at FRA’s Management Board.

Online surveys facilitate access to ’hard-to-sample’

individuals, such as LGBTI, due to absence of relevant

sampling frames.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

The survey in a nutshell

KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY

The target group of the EU LGBTI survey is persons who self-identify as being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgen-

der or intersex. The survey examines issues of equal treatment and discrimination on two grounds, namely

sexual orientation and gender identity. The report uses the term LGBTI as an umbrella term encompassing all

survey respondents. As the analysis requires, it will also refer to the different subgroups, thereby acknowl-

edging that the fundamental rights issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons

may be profoundly different. The experiences of LGBTI persons are not only defined on the basis of their

sexual orientation or gender identity, but they are also affected by their educational and socio-economic

background and other characteristics. LGBTI persons may have different levels of openness about being

LGBTI to family, friends or colleagues. Some are open about being LGBTI, whereas others cannot or do not

want to share this with others.

The terms used are based on those used by international treaty bodies and other human rights mechanisms,

including the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Yogyakarta Principles on the ap-

plication of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity have used

these as well.*

Sexual orientation

refers to “each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attrac-

tion to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more

than one gender”.** Sexual orientation refers to identity (being), conduct (behaviour) and how you relate

to other persons (relationships). It is generally assumed that persons are heterosexual (orientation towards

persons of a different gender), homosexual (gay, or lesbian, orientation towards persons of the same gen-

der) or bisexual (oriented towards both genders).

Gender identity

refers to “each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may

or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may

involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means)

and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms”.*** Those whose gender identity

does not correspond with the sex assigned at birth are commonly referred to as transgender persons. This

group includes persons who wish at some point in their life to undergo gender reassignment treatments

(usually referred to as transsexual persons), as well as persons who ‘cross-dress’ or persons who do not,

or do not want to, consider themselves as being ‘men’ or ‘women’. Some of them refer to themselves as

‘gender variant’.

Gender expression

refers, then, to a person’s manifestation of their gender identity, for example through

‘masculine’, ‘feminine’ or ‘gender variant’ behaviour, clothing, haircut, voice or body characteristics. Since

experiences of homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gen-

der identity often find their roots in social perceptions of gender roles, this survey has also included this

element.****

***

International Commission of Jurists (2007), Yogyakarta principles: principles on the application of international

human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, March 2007.

Ibid., p. 6.

Ibid.

****

For a full glossary of LGBTI terms and definitions, refer to the

ILGA-Europe (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Trans and Intersex Association) Glossary.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Assessing progress:

selected results

Overall progress

Comparing the results of the 2012 and 2019 surveys

shows little, if any, progress during the past seven

years in the way LGBT people in the EU experience

their human and fundamental rights in daily life. But it

is important to note that the overall EU average results

conceal important differences between Member States.

To assess progress since 2012, only data for LGBT per-

sons aged 18 and above are used from the 2019 survey.

The intersex category, which was not surveyed in 2012,

is excluded, as are respondents from Serbia and North

Macedonia and LGBTI adolescents aged 15 to 17.

Readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Survey

Data explorer to obtain a more in-depth and full picture

of the situation in different EU Member States.

Discrimination in work contexts remains a reality.

Specifically:

The share of respondents in 2019 who felt discrimi-

nated against when looking for work (11 %) is only

slightly smaller than in 2012 (13 %).

The proportion of respondents who feel discrimi-

nated against at work in 2019 (21 %) is slightly

higher compared to 2012 (19 %).

A higher proportion of trans respondents feels dis-

criminated at work in 2019 (36 %) compared to

2012 (22 %).

The share of LGBT respondents who reported the

last discrimination incident related to work to an

equality body or any other organisation slightly in-

creased: 17 % did so in 2019, while 13 % did in 2012.

However, regarding how openly LGBTI people live, the

survey results show:

The share of LGBT respondents aged 18 or over who

were often or always open about being LGBT in-

creased from 36 % in 2012 to 52 % in 2019.

A lower share of young LGBT respondents aged 18-

24 hides being LGBT at school. This dropped from

47 % in 2012 to 41 % in 2019.

The share of respondents who often or always

avoid holding hands in public with same-sex part-

ners remains high at around 60 %.

Using comparable datasets to

assess developments

This section aims to identify trends and assess

positive change or setbacks in the path towards

equality of LGBTI persons, as revealed by the sur-

vey respondents’ responses about their experi-

ences and views on discrimination and intolerance

in the country they live in.

To achieve this and obtain robust and reliable

results, FRA deployed a two-fold process. We

compared the 2012 and 2019 survey results by

preparing fully comparable datasets to conduct

comparisons. Specifically, for the comparison, we

used only the 2019 data for LGBT persons – with-

out categories that were not surveyed in 2012,

such as intersex persons, respondents living in

Serbia and North Macedonia, and LGBTI adoles-

cents aged 15 to 17 years. We also applied appro-

priate weighting methods.*

* FRA used the same weighting process for both survey

datasets to achieve methodologically sound and com-

parable samples. This means that the datasets we used

for this comparison are different than the ones used

for the 2012 survey publication and for the 2019 survey

analysis in the other chapters of this report. Therefore,

the comparative chart figures for specific phenomena,

for example discrimination, may slightly vary from

those in the other chapters, as they concern different

samples on the basis of which they were calculated

in the two different instances (for trend comparisons

and for survey analysis).

Discrimination remains an issue in a broad range of

areas of life asked about in the survey, such as in

employment, at a café, restaurant, bar or night club, in

healthcare or social services, at school or university, in

housing, at a shop, or when showing an identification

document. The data show that:

Overall, in 2019 more LGBT respondents (43 %)

felt discriminated against in the 12 months before

the survey in all areas of life that the survey asked

about than did so in 2012 (37 %).

This difference is markedly more pronounced for

trans respondents (2012 survey: 43 %; 2019 sur-

vey: 60 %).

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Assessing progress: selected results

Figure 1: Respondents who felt discriminated against due to being LGBT when looking for work in the 12

months before the survey (2012 and 2019), EU-28 and by group (%)

a,b

Lesbian

Gay

Bisexual

(female)

Bisexual

(male)

Trans

2012

Notes:

2019

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of LGBT respondents aged 18+ of the 2019 Survey II, and of all LGBT respondents of the 2012 Survey I, who

had been looking for a job during the 12 months before the survey (2012 n =37,843, 2019 n=60,697); weighted

results.

Question 2019: “C1. During the last 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against because of being

[category on the basis of A3 or A4] in any of the following situations::A. When looking for a job.”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI I (2012) and EU-LGBTI II (2019)

Figure 2: Respondents who felt discriminated against at work due to being LGBT in the last 12 months

before the survey (2012 and 2019), EU-28 and by group (%)

a,b

Lesbian

Gay

Bisexual

(female)

Bisexual

(male)

Trans

2012

Notes:

2019

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of LGBT respondents aged 18+ of the 2019 Survey II, and of all LGBT respondents of the 2012 Survey I, who

had been at work during the 12 months before the survey (2012 n =68,996, 2019 n=83,816); weighted results.

Question 2019: “C1. During the last 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against because of being

[category on the basis of A3 or A4] in any of the following situations: At work.”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI I (2012) and EU-LGBTI II (2019)

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

The share of respondents who felt discriminated at

a café, restaurant, bar or night club rose to 26 % in

2019 from 18 % in 2012.

The proportion of respondents who reported to an

equality body or any other organisation the most

recent discrimination incident in any area of life is

slightly higher in 2019 (13 %) than in 2012 (10 %).

The two surveys measured differently harassment and

violence motivated by an assumption that the victim

is LGBTI. In the second wave, some of the questions

were slightly adjusted to improve the accuracy of the

information provided. Nevertheless, when looking at

the responses to these questions, it is difficult to see

progress.

In 2019, most LGBT respondents (58 %) said that

they experienced over the past five years harass-

ment in the form of offensive or threatening situa-

tions at work, on the street, on public transport, in

a shop, on the internet οr anywhere else, including

offensive or threatening incidents of a sexual nature.

In 2012, 45 % of LGBT respondents said that they

had been personally harassed in the five years be-

fore the survey by someone or a group for any rea-

son in a way that really annoyed, offended or up-

set them at work, at home, on the street, on public

transport, in a shop, in an office or on the internet.

In 2019, 5 % of LGBT respondents said that they

had been physically or sexually attacked, excluding

threats of violence, with higher rates among trans

respondents.

In 2012, the same share (5 %) of LGBT respondents

said that they had been physically or sexually at-

tacked or threatened with violence in the year be-

fore the survey.

In 2019, a slightly smaller proportion (14 %) of LGBT

respondents said that they reported to the police

the most recent hate-motivated incident of physi-

cal or sexual attack – excluding ‘threats of violence’.

In 2012, 17 % of LGBT respondents said that they

reported the most recent hate-motivated violent

incident of physical or sexual attack or threat of

violence against them to the police.

Change in social attitudes

over past five years

“In my opinion, the situation has improved significantly

over the last few decades. The laws have also been

adapted in many places (opening of marriage, third-gender

regulations, etc.)”

(Germany, Gay man, 33)

The 2019 survey also asked respondents about their

views on any increase or decrease in prejudice or intol-

erance against LGBTI people in the past five years. The

results provide a mixed picture.

Four in 10 respondents (40 %) across all groups say

that prejudice and intolerance against LGBTI people

has decreased ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’ in their country. Gay

men (42 %) and bisexual men (45 %) and women

(42 %) are more likely to perceive an improve-

ment. However, a lower proportion of trans and

intersex respondents think this (31 % and 29 %,

respectively).

On the other hand, one in three LGBTI respondents

(36 %) say that prejudice and intolerance increased

‘a little’ or ‘a lot’. This only partly corresponds to the

findings of the recent Special Eurobarometer 493,

which indicates that social acceptance of LGBTI per-

sons among the general population has increased

in most EU Member States.

There are important differences among the coun-

tries surveyed. For instance, in Ireland, Malta and

Finland, over 70 % of respondents perceive a de-

crease in intolerance. In Poland and France, most

respondents said that intolerance has increased

overall (68 % and 54 %, respectively).

Respondents were also asked if they believe violence

against LGBTI people has increased or decreased in their

country over the past five years.

More than four in 10 respondents (43 %) think that

violence against LGBTI people increased ‘a little’ or

‘a lot’ in their country.

One third (33 %) believe violence has stayed the

same.

Again, results vary considerably between coun-

tries. For example, about two thirds or more of all

LGBTI respondents in France (73 %) and Poland

(66 %) believe violence has overall increased. In

contrast, 70 % of respondents in Malta and 59 %

in Ireland believe violence has overall decreased in

the past five years.

Special Eurobarometer 493 (2019)

Discrimination in the EU.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Assessing progress: selected results

Factors affecting progress

“Two things are in my view crucial for improving situa-

tion of queer people in the EU: increase their visibility and

eliminate hate speech from opinion makers (politicians,

church representatives).”

(Czechia, Lesbian woman, 39)

The survey asked respondents to select, among a range

of factors, those they believe either contributed to an

increase or to a decrease in prejudice, intolerance or

violence against LGBTI people.

Among those who say that the situation in their coun-

try has improved in the past five years, most believe

that a major factor is the ‘visibility of LGBTI people

and their participation in everyday life’. Respondents

also selected ‘positive changes in law and policy’ and

‘support by public figures, community leaders and civil

society’ as relevant factors.

Most of the respondents who say that the situation

has deteriorated see the main contributing factors as

‘negative public discourse by politicians and/or political

parties’, as well as ‘lack of support by civil society’ and

‘lack of enforcement of existing law and policies’ or ‘lack

of support by public figures and community leaders’ and

of visibility of LGBTI persons.

“Our community needs much more support, especially

from politicians, the media and, last but not least, the

police. Their blind eye for homophobia is probably a major

problem. If homophobia does not start to be punished, we

will not move further.”

(Slovakia, Lesbian woman, 39)

Satisfaction with

government efforts

The survey then asked respondents to assess how their

government responded to prejudice and intolerance

against LGBTI people. These findings can be particu-

larly useful to policymakers and civil society when

they design measures to improve the visibility of LGBTI

people in everyday life and protect their fundamental

rights.

Overall, across the EU, one third of respondents

(33 %) believe their national government combats

effectively prejudice and intolerance against LGBTI

people definitely or probably. This proportion is

lower for trans respondents (24 %).

The differences between countries, however, are

striking. In nine Member States, the majority of re-

spondents, which is as high as 83 % in Malta, say

that the government in their country combats defi-

nitely or probably effectively prejudice and intoler-

ance. In contrast, in 10 Member States, this propor-

tion is lower than 20 %, dropping to a low of 4 %

in Poland.

FRA’s LGBTI Survey Data explorer provides more

insights and a fuller picture of the situation in dif-

ferent EU Member States.

“The general atmosphere in Poland has changed drastical-

ly over the past years in terms of perception of LGBT and

environments. State officials praise their intolerance by

announcing more and more new areas of the country “free

from LGBT”. I have no confidence in the police and the

courts in these matters. I am more than sure that in the

event of some problems with my orientation, he was first

treated with ironic disgust, humiliated and then ignored

systemically.”

(Poland, Gay man, 39)

On 18 December 2019, the European Parliament adopted

a resolution

on public discrimination and hate speech against

LGBTI people,

including LGBTI free zones. The Parliament

expressed “deep concern at the growing number of attacks

against the LGBTI community that can be observed in the

EU, coming from states, state officials, governments at

national, regional and local levels, and politicians”. The

resolution further states: “[The European Parliament]

strongly condemns any discrimination against LGBTI people

and their fundamental rights by public authorities, including

hate speech by public authorities and elected officials, in

the context of elections, as well as the recent declarations

of zones in Poland free from so-called ‘LGBT ideology’, and

calls on the Commission to strongly condemn these public

discriminations”.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 3: LGBTI respondents who think the government in the country they live in combats effectively

prejudice and intolerance against LGBTI people (2019)

EU-28

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual (female) [EU-28]

Bisexual (male) [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

Yes, deﬁnitely

Notes:

Yes, probably

No, probably not

No, deﬁnitely not

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all 2019 LGBTI survey respondents (n=139,799 and EU-28 n=137,508); weighted results.

Question: “Do you think the government in [COUNTRY] combats effectively prejudice and intolerance against

LGBTI people? 1. Yes, definitely, 2. Yes, probably, 3. No, probably not, 4. No, definitely not.”

Source:

FRA, EU LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Assessing progress: selected results

Progress across generations:

experiences at school

The survey asked respondents about their positive and

negative experiences as LGBTI persons when they were

at school. Comparing the responses across different age

groups provides a useful snapshot of how things have

developed over a long period of time.

Younger respondents who were at school in the recent

past more frequently experienced positive support and

protection during their time at school than respond-

ents who went to school long ago. For instance, almost

half of the respondents aged 15 to 17 (48 %) say that

in school someone has always or often supported,

defended or protected them and their rights. This pro-

portion drops to a third (33 %) for respondents aged

18 to 24. It drops to 13 % for those aged 25 to 39, and

to 7 % for those 40 and over.

The majority of those aged 25 and over say either that

they have never experienced such positive support

or that it does not apply to them. The proportion of

respondents who indicate that this did not apply to

them increases with age: from 15 % for those aged 15

to 17, to 25 % for respondents aged 18 to 24, to 39 % for

those aged 25 to 39, to 43 % for those between 40 and

54, and 49 % for those over 55. This could indicate that

across generations progressively fewer respondents are

hiding being LGBTI at school.

“I want my child to feel good when he starts school and

my sexual orientation is not an obstacle in his life.”

(Bulgaria, Lesbian woman, 39)

The positive trend described above is partly reflected

in responses to a question about how schools address

LGBTI issues over generations. Among respondents

aged 40 and over, 82 % to 86 % say that LGBTI issues

were not addressed at school. This decreases to 47 %

for those aged 15 to 17. This indicates that LGBTI issues

are gradually being addressed more in schools. Such

issues are progressively addressed more positively than

before. Survey respondents aged 15 to 17 say LGBTI

issues were addressed during their school education in

a positive way in 13 % of the cases, in 19 % in a neutral

and balanced way, and 10 % in both positive and nega-

tive ways. Only 10 % of the LGBTI respondents aged

15 to 17 say that such issues are addressed negatively

today at school.

Figure 4: Respondents who say that, during their time in school, someone supported, defended or pro-

tected them and their rights as L,G,B,T or I person, by age group (EU-28, Serbia and North Mac-

edonia)(%)

15-17

18-24

25-39

40-54

55+

Does not apply to me

Notes:

Never

Rarely

Often

Always

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in EU-28 who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 139,799);

weighted results.

The presented percentages refer to respondents who answered ‘never’, ‘rarely’, ‘often’, ‘always’ or ‘does not

apply to me’ to question C10: “During your time in school in [COUNTRY] Has anyone supported, defended or pro-

tected you and your rights as [RESPONDENT CATEGORY] person?”

Source:

FRA, EU LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 5: Respondents who say their school education at some point addressed LGBTI issues, by age

group (EU-28, %)

15-17

18-24

25-39

40-54

55+

Yes,

in a positive way

Yes, both in a positive and negative way

Notes:

Yes, in a neutral and balanced way

Yes, in a negative way

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in EU-28 who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 137,508);

weighted results.

The presented percentages refer to respondents who answered the question C10_1: “Did your school education

address at any point LGBTI issues? 1.Yes, in a positive way, 2. Yes, both in a positive and negative way, 3. Yes, in

a neutral and balanced way, 4. Yes, in a negative way, 5. No”

Source:

FRA, EU LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Key findings and FRA opinions

Drawing on the survey findings and building on FRA

work, FRA has formulated the following opinions.

They aim to support EU and national policymakers

in introducing and implementing comprehensive and

effective legislative and non-legislative measures to

respect and safeguard the fundamental rights of LGBTI

people.

In 2013, FRA formulated a range of opinions based on

the results of the first EU LGBT survey. Many of these

opinions remain relevant, given that the comparison

of the results from the two surveys do not show the

progress expected.

10 (10 %) reported harassment incidents to the police

or any other organisation.

The effective implementation of EU law – reflecting the

spirit of the Victims’ Rights Directive – entails encourag-

ing victims to report hate crimes to the police, as well

as ensuring that the police properly record any bias

motivation at the time of reporting. Doing so will not

only support the investigation and prosecution of hate

crime and hate speech targeting LGBTI people, but will

also provide the basis for more effective victim support.

The Victims’ Rights Directive requires that victims of

hate crime receive an individual assessment. This should

identify their specific protection needs, taking into

account their personal characteristics, including gender

identity or expression and sexual orientation. Recitals

9, 17 and 56 explicitly refer to these characteristics. The

directive provides for confidential victim support ser-

vices available to all crime victims free of charge. It also

mandates that officials likely to come into contact with

victims, such as police officers and court staff, receive

both general and specialist training to a level appropriate

to their contact with victims. The training should enable

them to deal with victims in an impartial, respectful and

professional manner.

The Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia

does not cover sexual orientation, gender identity,

gender expression or sex characteristics. However,

when transposing this Framework Decision into their

national criminal law provisions, many EU Member

States included all or some of these protected charac-

teristics in the list of aggravating bias motivations that

qualify a crime as a hate crime.

Stepping up efforts to tackle

harassment and violence

against LGBTI people

Significant proportions of people continue to experience

harassment and violence because of being LGBTI. Only

few LGBTI people report such incidents to the police or

any other organisation.

A majority of LGBTI respondents (58 %) say that they

experienced, during the five years before the survey,

harassment in the form of offensive or threatening

situations – including incidents of a sexual nature – at

work, on the street, on public transport, in a shop, on

the internet, οr anywhere else.

Fewer than one in seven (14 %) LGBTI respondents

say that they reported to the police the most recent

hate-motivated physical or sexual attack. Only one in

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

FRA opinion 1

Drawing on practice in a number of Member States,

other Member States could consider to include sexual

orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and

sex characteristics as aggravating bias motivations

that qualify a crime as a hate crime. This would both

protect LGBTI persons against hate crimes and hate

speech more effectively, and follow the increasing

trend of extending, in national legislation, the

characteristics of victims that are protected by hate

crime provisions.

EU Member States should ensure that any alleged

hate crime against LGBTI persons is effectively

recorded and investigated. National authorities

should provide police officers with detailed guidance

containing descriptions of bias indicators and

a monitoring definition of hate crime, as FRA has

outlined in its 2018 report on

Hate crime recording

and data collection practice across the EU.

The survey also reveals that experiencing physical or

sexual attacks is more common for trans and intersex

respondents (17 % and 22 %, respectively, in the five

years before the survey), compared with the average

for all respondents (11 % in the EU-28).

No one should feel a need to hide their identity to avoid

discrimination or hate in the EU, which is founded on

values common to its Member States. These include

respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, and

respect for human rights, including the rights of persons

belonging to minorities. The pressure experienced to

hide one’s identity affects fundamental rights, such as

the rights to dignity, equality, and freedom of expres-

sion enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

and the European Convention of Human Rights.

FRA opinion 2

To remove barriers to reporting, and in line with

the overall goals of the Victims’ Rights Directive,

EU Member States should step up efforts to enhance

trust between LGBTI people and law enforcement.

This could be achieved, for example, by deploying

dedicated liaison officers and providing training on

how to better recognise, assist and support victims

of anti-LGBTI hate crimes. Civil society organisations

should be involved in the training to better integrate

the victim’s perspective.

Member States could consider means to further

encourage and facilitate the reporting of hate crimes

and hate speech by LGBTI victims, pursuing a more

effective implementation of the Victims’ Rights

Directive. They could achieve this by, for example,

using ‘on-line reporting’ or ‘third party reporting’

tools that allow LGBTI victims to seek assistance

from civil society organisations.

FRA opinion 3

EU Member States are urged to adopt and implement

comprehensive action plans and strategies that

promote respect for LGBTI rights in all areas of life.

This would allow LGBTI persons to enjoy the same

freedoms – particularly in public – that heterosexuals

take for granted. Special consideration should

be given to trans and intersex persons, as well

as LGBTI children and youth – given the particular

challenges they face, as shown in this report. In this

context, Member States should engage all levels of

government, in particular local authorities, as it is in

daily interactions in public space, schools and the

workplace that human rights are fulfilled in practice.

Ensuring that nobody feels

a need to hide their sexual

orientation or gender identity

The extent to which LGBTI people feel compelled to

hide their sexual orientation or gender identity remains

alarmingly high. Over half of LGBTI people surveyed are

almost never or rarely open about being LGBTI. Less

than a quarter say that they are very open. Younger

LGBTI respondents are even less open: only 12 % of

those aged 18 to 24, and 5 % of those aged 15 to 17,

are very open. By comparison, 36 % of those aged 55+

are very open.

A majority of respondents (61 %) always or often avoids

even simple displays of affection in public, such as hold-

ing hands. One in three (33 %) often or always avoid

certain places for fear of being assaulted, threatened

or harassed.

Creating a safe and

supportive environment at

school for LGBTI children and

young people

The survey results suggest that, across generations,

progressively fewer young respondents hide being

LGBTI at school. They also indicate that LGBTI issues are

gradually being addressed more – and more positively –

in education. The proportion of respondents who say

that LGBTI issues were not addressed decreases by age,

from 86 % for those aged 55+, and 82 % for those aged

40 to 54, to 47 % for those aged 15 to 17.

Six in 10 adolescent LGBTI respondents aged 15 to 17

said that, at school, they have heard or seen some-

one support, protect or promote the rights of lesbian,

gay, bisexual, trans and/or intersex persons. One in

three said that their school education at some point

addressed LGBTI issues positively or in a neutral and

balanced way. In contrast, only one in twelve respond-

ents aged 55 and over said that this was the case when

they were at school.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Key findings and FRA opinions

At the same time, school still is far from a safe place for

LGBTI students. The majority of respondents aged 15 to

17 have experienced discrimination in some area of life

(53 %). Of such respondents, 45 % felt discriminated

against at school. These data differ significantly among

Member States. Therefore, school can play a key posi-

tive or negative role.

Childhood and adolescence are essential phases in

a person’s development. The rights of the child (Arti-

cle 24), the right to non-discrimination (Article 21) and

the right to education (Article 14) are guaranteed by the

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 3 (3) of the

Treaty on European Union establishes the objective for

the EU to promote protection of the rights of the child.

Most EU Member States have gone beyond the mini-

mal EU standards to provide LGBTI people with better

protection against discrimination. The proposed ‘hori-

zontal’ Equal Treatment Directive would close the gap

in protection against discrimination by covering all areas

of life, including education, building on the value of

pluralism enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty of the EU.

General Comment No. 13 of the UN Committee on the

Rights of the Child on the right of the child to freedom

from all forms of violence specifically refers to bully-

ing. It underlines that this may come in various forms,

including via information and communication technolo-

gies (ICTs), and can be psychological as well as physical

in nature. The importance of countering bullying is obvi-

ous in the context of LGBTI children, given that a high

proportion is likely to experience negative comments

and/or behaviour.

The EU Member States can improve their education

action plans following the Council of Europe Strategy for

the Rights of the Child (2016–2021) on non-discrimina-

tion, the right to be heard, protection from violence, and

the right to the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral,

psychological and social development. They can also

build on the Paris Declaration of 2015 and the Council of

Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship

and Human Rights Education of 2010.

According to international human rights law, states

should undertake educational and awareness-raising

programmes aimed at promoting and enhancing all

human rights by all persons, regardless of sexual ori-

entation or gender identity; and take all appropriate

action, including education and training programmes,

with a view to eliminating prejudicial or discriminatory

attitudes or behaviours.

FRA opinion 4

Within the framework of programmes such as

Erasmus+, the EU could:

Encourage and support EU Member States

to ensure that all educational settings, in

particular schools, provide a safe and supportive

environment, free from bullying and violence, for

all LGBTI children and young people. This could

include the development and implementation

of measures, in close cooperation with teachers

and school administrations, that address bullying

of LGBTI students and teachers.

Encourage and support Member States to

consider revising educational and training

curricula and materials so they do not present

LGBTI persons in connotation with pathology,

which risks to misinform and fuel hatred and

victimisation against them. They should also

conform to human rights standards and the World

Health Organisation’s definition, revising them

where necessary. Equality bodies and Ombuds

institutions, as well as civil society organisations,

could be involved in these reforms.

Encourage and support Member States to

develop peer learning among schools and

education professionals, including sharing

educational good practices, to tackle homophobic

and transphobic bullying.

Implementing rigorously

the Employment Equality

Directive

Twenty years after the adoption of the Employment

Equality Directive, employment continues to be an area

of life where LGBTI people experience high rates of

discrimination. In the year before the 2019 survey, 21 %

of respondents felt discriminated against at work. By

comparison, 19 % said they did so in the 2012 survey.

Moreover, 10 % feel discriminated against when looking

for work; in the 2012 survey, 13 % did so. One in four

(26 %) respondents hide being LGBTI at work.

However, a look at the two FRA LGBT(I) surveys (in

2012 and 2019) shows that more discrimination incidents

at work are being reported to an equality body or any

other organisation: 17 % of the most recent incidents

were reported in 2019, compared to 13 % in 2012.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

FRA opinion 5

To tackle more effectively discrimination in

employment on grounds of sexual orientation,

gender identity and expression, and sex

characteristics, EU Member States should consider

developing comprehensive action plans. These

should involve all necessary stakeholders, including

labour inspectorates, trade unions, employers’

organisations and civil society organisations.

The action plans could include measures such as

discrimination testing, diversity audits, diversity

management training, and promoting adhering

and committing to

diversity charters.

Member

States should consider leading by example by

applying these measures within their own public

administrations.

only in the area of employment and occupation. The

proposed Equal Treatment Directive would extend pro-

tection against discrimination on sexual orientation to

the areas of social protection, social advantages, educa-

tion and access to supply of goods and services, includ-

ing housing. However, after 11 years of negotiations

in the Council of the EU, this legal proposal remains in

deadlock.

In the absence of more comprehensive EU legislation,

a majority EU Member States have gone beyond the

minimal EU standards. They have expanded the scope of

equality laws (as regards sexual orientation) beyond the

field of employment and occupation, and have explicitly

included gender identity and/or sex characteristics as

protected grounds.

Tackling discrimination

against LGBTI people in all

areas of life

Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, gender

identity and sex characteristics is widespread in many

areas of life. More than a third (37 %) of respondents

felt discriminated against in areas of life other than

work. People experience discrimination at school, when

looking for housing, when accessing healthcare or social

services, as well as in shops, at cafés, restaurants, bars

or nightclubs. The rates are highest for trans (55 %)

and intersex (59 %) respondents. Among the different

areas of life asked about, other than work, the highest

share of respondents (22 %) felt discriminated against

in a café, restaurant, bar or nightclub.

The principle of non-discrimination lies at the heart of

EU policy and legislation. But the EU legal framework

does not address equally all groups of the LGBTI acro-

nym. Sexual orientation is included in Article 19 of the

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and Article 21

of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Gender iden-

tity and sex characteristics are not.

In some cases, transgender and intersex people can

rely on the protection against discrimination on grounds

of sex. However, so far this protection is limited to

people who underwent, are undergoing, or intend to

undergo gender reassignment, according to the case

law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). Member

State approaches in this regard diverge. An explicit

reference to gender identity and sex characteristics in

anti-discrimination law would ensure more compre-

hensive protection, based on self-determination and

not dependent on medical transition, and capturing the

individual’s lived experience.

The Employment Equality Directive protects against

discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, but

FRA opinion 6

The EU should adopt the proposed Equal Treatment

Directive without further delay. This would ensure

that EU legislation offers comprehensive protection

against discrimination on grounds of sexual

orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics

in key areas of life currently not covered by EU

legislation.

Supporting victims effectively

to encourage reporting

Few LGBTI people report the discrimination they experi-

ence. This happens even though many Member States

have equality bodies mandated to independently assist

victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints

on different grounds, including on grounds of sexual

orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.

The majority of respondents (61 %) know that their

country has an equality body. Still, only 11 % of most

recent incidents of discrimination were reported to the

country’s equality body or some other organisation.

When asked why they do not report such incidents,

victims of discrimination most frequently say that they

think nothing would change if they reported them. This

suggests that equality bodies are inefficient or insuf-

ficiently mandated and resourced to be effective.

In this regard, the European Commission in its

Recom-

mendation of June 2018 on standards for equality bodies

asked Member States to take into consideration several

aspects concerning the submission of complaints. These

include access and accessibility, such as ensuring that

it is possible to submit complaints to equality bodies

orally, in written form and on-line, in a language of the

complainant’s choosing which is common in the Mem-

ber State where the equality body is located; ensuring

that the procedure to submit complaints to equality

bodies is simple and free of charge; and, providing for

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Key findings and FRA opinions

an obligation for equality bodies to offer confidentiality

to witnesses and whistle-blowers and, as far as pos-

sible, to complainants about discrimination.

legislation, which does not explicitly recognise inter-

sectional discrimination.

FRA opinion 8

FRA opinion 7

EU Member States should ensure that equality bodies

are adequately mandated and resourced to fulfil

their role in line with the European Commission’s

Recommendation on standards for equality bodies.

Moreover, equality bodies should step up outreach

activities, including in educational settings, to inform

the general public, LGBTI people and organisations

about the protection provided by law and the

support they can offer to victims.

The EU should ensure that any new legislation

proposed or adopted in the area of equality explicitly

refers to multiple and intersectional discrimination.

EU Member States should acknowledge and

address multiple and intersectional discrimination

experienced by LGBTI people when they develop

and implement legal and policy instruments to

combat discrimination, foster equal treatment and

promote inclusion.

Member States should ensure that national equality

bodies and human rights institutions have the

mandate and resources necessary to effectively

combat intersectional discrimination.

Confronting multiple and

intersectional discrimination

People may experience discrimination based on multi-

ple grounds. For example, a lesbian woman may face

discrimination both as a lesbian and as a woman, or as

a member of a religious group. Four in 10 respondents

to the survey (40 %) who self-identify as members of

an ethnic minority or have an immigrant background

indicate ethnic origin or immigrant background as an

additional ground for discrimination (besides being

LGBTI). Some 15 % indicated their skin colour as an

additional ground for discrimination. More than a third

of respondents (36 %) who identify themselves as

persons with disabilities indicate disability as an

additional ground. Of those who belong to a reli-

gious minority, 28 % indicate religion as an additional

ground.

The European Parliament in its 2016 Resolution on appli-

cation of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 Novem-

ber 2000 establishing a general framework for equal

treatment in employment and occupation (‘Employment

Equality Directive’), called on the Member States and

the Commission to combat all forms of multiple discrimi-

nation and to ensure application of the principle of non-

discrimination and equal treatment in the labour market

and in access to employment, increasing monitoring of

the intersectionality between gender and other grounds

in cases of discrimination and in practices.

Addressing discrimination from the perspective of

a single ground fails to tackle adequately various mani-

festations of unequal treatment. The European Court

of Human Rights (ECtHR) clearly applies a multiple-

grounds approach, even if it does not use the terms

multiple or intersectional discrimination. A person at

the intersection of two grounds experiences disad-

vantage and discrimination that is qualitatively differ-

ent from either of the two grounds taken alone. The

current case law highlights the limits of EU equality

Requiring full, informed

consent for medical

interventions on intersex

people

Intersex people face particularly grave violations of

their rights to physical and psychological integrity. In

Europe, there are no comprehensive statistical data on

medical treatments or surgeries performed on intersex

children.

According to FRA data, only two Member States pro-

hibit medical intervention on intersex babies without

consent. Parents are usually not sufficiently informed

and aware of the consequences of their decision. Most

intersex survey respondents (62 %) say they did not

provide – and were not asked for – their own or their

parents’ fully informed consent before their first sur-

gical intervention to modify their sex characteristics

(which can take place at different ages). Almost half of

the intersex respondents (49 %) say that fully informed

consent was not provided for hormonal treatment, or

for any other type of medical treatment.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines

the right to integrity, and stresses that the free and

informed consent of the person must be respected

(Article 3 – Title I ‘Dignity’). A 2019 European Parliament

resolution strongly condemns ‘sex-normalising’ treat-

ments and surgery and calls for breaking the stigma

against intersex people. In 2017, the Council of Europe

Parliamentary Assembly called on Council of Europe

member states to prohibit medically unnecessary ‘sex-

normalising’ surgery, sterilisation and other treatments

practised on intersex children without their/their par-

ents’ informed consent, and to provide intersex people

with adequate health care and psychosocial support.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

The World Health Organisation in the 11

revision of the

International Classification of Diseases (ICD)11 partially

de-pathologised trans identities, removing them from

‘disorders of sex development’.

FRA opinion 9

The EU could encourage all EU Member States to

ensure, in cooperation with medical associations,

healthcare service providers and unions of

healthcare professionals, that intersex people, or

parents taking care of intersex children, are always

fully informed about the consequences of any

medical intervention before giving their consent.

Legal and medical professionals should be better

informed of the fundamental rights of intersex

people, particularly children. Member States should

avoid ‘sex-normalising’ medical treatments on

intersex people without their free and informed

consent.

Gender markers in identity documents and birth

registries should be reviewed to better protect

intersex people.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

2�½1�½ Living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or intersex

person

KEY FINDINGS

Half (53 %) of LGBTI respondents are almost never or rarely open about being LGBTI.

Most respondents (61 %) always or often avoid holding hands with their same-sex partners.

One in three respondents (33 %) always or often avoid certain places or locations for fear of being as-

saulted, threatened or harassed because they are LGBTI.

37 % of respondents aged 15 to 17 are almost never open about being LGBTI.

This section presents survey findings on the extent to

which respondents are open about being LGBTI in eve-

ryday life, including at school. It also outlines results on

life satisfaction. Finally, it discusses aspects affecting

the freedom of movement of same-sex couples and

their families.

“We deserve to feel safe in our country without being

afraid to hold hands with our spouse. Today, this is not

a reality.”

(France, Gay man, 21)

Less than a quarter (23 %) of the respondents say that

they are very open.

Younger LGBTI respondents are

even less open: only 12 % of those aged 18 to 24 and

5 % of those aged 15 to 17 are very open. By compari-

son, 36 % of those aged 55+ are very open. Education

also plays a role: LGBTI respondents with higher educa-

tion levels (27 %) are almost twice as likely as those

with lower education levels (14 %) to be very open.

The majority of respondents (61 %) always or often

avoid even simple displays of affection – holding

hands – in public. One in three (33 %) always or often

avoid certain places for fear of being assaulted, threat-

ened or harassed.

A matter of rights: dignity, liberty,

security and expression

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides

that human dignity must be respected and pro-

tected (Article 1). It also protects the right to

liberty and security (Article 6), and the right to

freedom of expression (Article 11).

2�½1�½1�½ Openness in everyday life

Many LGBTI people feel compelled to hide their sex-

ual orientation or gender identity, or to avoid cer-

tain situations, out of fear of violence, harassment or

discrimination.

The survey asked respondents to which extent they are

open about being LGBTI to different people, such as family

members, friends, colleagues, etc. It calculated four levels of

‘openness’: very open, fairly open, rarely open, and almost

never open.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 6: Respondents’ levels of openness about being LGBTI, by group and country (%)

a,b

EU-28

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual women [EU-28]

Bisexual men [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

(Almost) never open

Notes:

Rarely open

Fairly open

Very open

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who provided a valid answer of at least one sub-question from battery G1 (n = 139,363; in

EU, n = 137,085); weighted results.

The presented percentages are based on answers to question G1: “To how many people among the following

groups are you open about yourself being [RESPONDENT CATEGORY]? (A. Family members (other than your

partner(s)); B. Friends; C. Neighbours; D. Work colleagues; E. Schoolmates / University co-students; F. Immediate

superior/head of department; G. Customers, clients, etc. at work; H. Medical staff/health care providers”.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

The results show differences among the countries sur-

veyed. In five, the majority of respondents are almost

never open about being LGBTI: Lithuania (60 %), North

Macedonia (60 %), Bulgaria (54 %), and Romania and

Serbia (both 53 %). The highest share of respondents

who are very open about being LGBTI is found in Den-

mark (45 %) and the Netherlands (43 %). Among the

different groups, bisexual men are more likely than

other groups to almost never be open (56 %). This is

especially true in Bulgaria (83 %) and North Macedonia

(82 %).

Readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Survey

Data explorer to obtain a more in-depth and full picture

of the situation in different EU Member States.

“We live in a world where we have to hide and establish

fake relationships with all the people we know. Better to

die.”

(Italy, Gay man, 27)

‘Avoidance behaviours’ include, for instance, not holding

a same-sex partner’s hand in public or avoiding certain

places. The results show important country differences

regarding such behaviour. In 12 survey countries, 10 %

or less of respondents say that they never avoid hold-

ing their same-sex partner’s hands in public. In seven

countries, between 20 % and 26 % of respondents say

they would never avoid such behaviour. The number

is highest in Luxembourg (26 %), followed by Malta

(25 %), Czechia and Finland (both 24 %), Austria and

Denmark (both 22 %), and Sweden (20 %).

Readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Survey

Data explorer to obtain a more in-depth and full picture

of the situation in different EU Member States.

“In the street, with my husband, we never hold hands,

having probably internalized the potential homophobic

look of others. And we never kiss in public”.

(France, Gay

man, 46)

“I just wish I didn’t have to think about which route is safe

when I’m walking hand in hand with my girlfriend and

wouldn’t feel the disapproving looks all the time.”

(Estonia,

Lesbian woman, 21)

Almost half of the respondents to the 2012 survey

(47 %) said they avoided certain places for fear of being

assaulted, threatened or harassed because they are

LGBT. In 2019, overall, one in three LGBTI respondents

(33 %) said they always or often avoid certain places.

The highest shares of respondents avoiding certain

places are in Poland (79 %), North Macedonia (77 %)

and Serbia (76 %). Meanwhile, the only country where

the majority of respondents (53 %) never avoid certain

places is Malta.

“I want to be able to hold my partner’s hand without

being afraid of people staring, screaming or acting

threateningly.”

(Sweden, Trans man, 27)

Three in 10 respondents (30 %) aged 15 to 17 hide or

disguise being LGBTI at school. Six in 10 (61 %) are selec-

tively open. The highest numbers hiding being LGBTI

at school are in Croatia (51 %) and Cyprus (47 %). The

lowest shares do so in the Netherlands (16 %) and Malta

(17 %).

“High school [...] was hell after my relationship with

a classmate was revealed. I think I will never forget some

incidents and that all had a great impact on me at a fairly

vulnerable age and period of my life.”

(Croatia, Bisexual

woman, 24)

In the 2012 survey, respondents could only reply ‘yes’ or

‘no’, while in the 2019 survey they could also indicate the

frequency of avoiding certain places because of fear. This

means that respondents who in the 2012 survey replied ‘no’,

in the 2019 survey might have replied ‘rarely’ or ‘never’; and

some who in 2012 replied ‘yes’ in the 2019 survey might have

replied ‘rarely’. The two results are therefore not directly

comparable.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 7: Respondents who avoid holding same-sex partner’s hands in public for fear of being assaulted,

threatened or harassed, by group and country (%)

EU-28

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual women [EU-28]

Bisexual men [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

Never

Notes:

Rarely

Often

Always

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who have a same-sex partner and provided a valid answer to question D1 (n = 99,418; in

EU n = 97,589); weighted results.

The presented percentages are based on answers to question D1: “Do you avoid holding hands in public with

a same-sex partner for fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed?”.

Besides ‘never’, ‘rarely’, ‘often’ and ‘always’, respondents could answer ‘don’t know’. The category ‘don’t know’

is not included in the chart. For this reason, the sum of the categories may not equal 100. The percentage of

respondents who answered ‘don’t know’ did not exceed 0.8 % in any breakdown category in the chart.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 8: Respondents who avoid certain places or locations for fear of being assaulted, threatened or

harassed because they are LGBTI, by group (%)

EU-28

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual women [EU-28]

Bisexual men [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

Never

Notes:

Rarely

Often

Always

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in the EU who provided a valid answer to question D2 (n = 137,508); weighted results.

The presented percentages are based on answers to question D2: “Do you avoid certain places or locations for

fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed because you are [RESPONDENT CATEGORY]?”.

Besides ‘never’, ‘rarely’, ‘often’ and ‘always’, respondents could answer ‘don’t know’. The category ‘don’t know’

is not included in the chart. For this reason, the sum of the categories may not equal 100. The percentage of

respondents who answered ‘don’t know’ did not exceed 0.65 % in any breakdown category in the chart.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

Figure 9: Respondents aged 15–17 who are very open, selectively open or who hide being LGBTI at school

in EU-28, by group (%)

EU-28

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual women [EU-28]

Bisexual men [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

Hide LGBTI identity

Notes:

Selectively open

Very open

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in EU-28 aged 15-17 who provided valid answers to questions C8A and C8B (n = 17,904);

weighted results.

Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49

unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations

are noted in parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not

published.

The presented percentages are calculated based on the percentages of respondents who answered question

C8A: “During your time in school in [COUNTRY], did you Openly talk about you being [RESPONDENT CATEGORY]

at school?”; and question C8B: “During your time in school in [COUNTRY], did you Hide or disguise that you were

[RESPONDENT CATEGORY] at school?”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

2�½1�½2�½ Life satisfaction

One of the indicators the OECD uses to evaluate

people’s well-being is ‘life satisfaction’.

The survey

asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with life

on a scale from 0 to 10; 0 means ‘very dissatisfied’ and

10 means ‘very satisfied’. There are cultural differences

in the way people perceive ‘life satisfaction’, so the

differences in ‘satisfaction’ between countries should

be interpreted with caution.

Overall, the LGBTI survey shows that life satisfaction

of LGBTI respondents across the EU averages 6.5. Gay

men and lesbian women have the highest average

satisfaction levels at 6.7. Trans and intersex respond-

ents have the lowest: both 5.6. There are considerable

country differences. For example, respondents living in

the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria are on average

more satisfied with their lives (7.1). Those living in North

Macedonia (5.0) and Poland (5.1) are the least satisfied.

Readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Survey

Data explorer to obtain a more in-depth and full picture

of the situation in different EU Member States.

Openness about being LGBTI appears to affect life

satisfaction. Respondents who are never open about

being LGBTI are on average less satisfied with their

lives (5.7) than those who are rarely open (6.1), fairly

open (6.6) or very open (7.5). Moreover, respondents

who felt discriminated in at least one area of life on

average have lower life satisfaction (5.9) than those

who have not felt discriminated (6.9).

FRA also compared its 2019 survey results on life satis-

faction with the results of Eurofound’s European Qual-

ity of Life Survey (EQLS) 2016, covering the general

population and respondents aged 18 years or older. On

average, LGBTI people across the EU are only slightly

less satisfied with their lives (6.5) than the general

population (6.8). However, there are some country dif-

ferences. For example, in Poland, LGBTI respondents are

less satisfied with their lives than the general popula-

tion by 1.7 points. By contrast, LGBTI respondents in – for

example – Greece, Bulgaria or Czechia are more satisfied

with life than the general population is.

2�½1�½3�½ Freedom of movement: same sex

couples and families

On 7 February 2018, the European Parliament adopted

a resolution

on fighting discrimination against minori-

ties in the EU Member States. It asked, among others,

for clear and accessible information on the recogni-

tion of cross-border rights for LGBTI persons and their

families in the EU. The resolution urges the Commission

to ensure that Member States make sure that LGBTI

individuals and their families can exercise their right

to free movement and provide clear and accessible

information on the recognition of cross-border rights

for LGBTI persons and their families. It also calls on

the Commission to take action to ensure that LGBTI

individuals and their families can exercise their right

to free movement.

The EU does not have competence in areas relating to

marital or family status. However, the CJEU noted that

the fundamental right to respect for family and private

life is guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter (which

has the same meaning and scope as Article 8 of the

ECHR), and it is apparent from ECtHR case law that the

relationship of a homosexual couple may fall within

the notion of ‘private life’ and that of ‘family life’ in the

same way as a relationship of a heterosexual couple

in the same situation.

The CJEU therefore confirmed

that same-sex spouse should be acknowledged for the

purposes of free movement of EU citizens,

even if

they are not otherwise recognised in the law of the

host Member State. The CJEU also confirmed the right

of employees in a same-sex partnership to the same

employment benefits as those granted to their in het-

erosexual marriage.

Around half of all Member States allow same-sex

couples to marry. Others offer alternative forms of

civil registration. Six Member States do not provide

a legal status for same-sex couples. Same-sex rights

to adopt a child and to access assisted reproduction

For more information, see the OECD

Better Life Index.

See

Resolution B8-0064/2018: Fighting discrimination of EU

citizens belonging to minorities in the EU Member States.

10 ECtHR,

Schalk and Kopf v. Austria,

24 June 2010.

11 CJEU, C-673/16,

Relu Adrian Coman and Others v.

Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul

Afacerilor Interne,

5 June 2018 (Grand Chamber). The CJEU

clarified in

Coman

that the term ‘spouse’ used in the Free

Movement Directive is gender neutral, and may therefore

cover the same-sex spouse of an EU citizen. Nevertheless,

the court also observed that the EU respects the national

identity of Member States, inherent in their fundamental

structures, both political and constitutional. Therefore,

a person’s status, which is relevant to the rules on marriage,

is a matter that falls within the competence of the Member

States. EU law does not detract from that competence, the

Member States being free to decide whether or not to allow

homosexual marriage.

12 CJEU, C-267/06,

Tadao Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der

deutschen Bühnen,

and CJEU, C-267/12,

Frédéric Hay v. Crédit

agricole mutuel.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 10: Average life satisfaction of LGBTI respondents (2019 data) and general population (2016 data)

on scale from 0 to 10, averages by country

ATLU

EU-28

General population

LT HU

LV HR

SI PT

LGBTI

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents aged 18 or above who provided a valid answer to question G2 in EU-LGBTI II survey (n =

121,090); weighted results. The general population data are based on question Q4 in the European Quality of Life

Survey 2016 by Eurofound.

The presented percentages refer answers to question: “All things considered, how satisfied would you say you

are with your life these days?”

EQLS measured life satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10, while the EU-LGBTI II survey on scale of 0 to 10. (In EU-LGBTI

II, 0 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied.) The presented averages for the general population

are rescaled (linear stretch method) to be comparable with the averages in the EU-LGBTI II survey. For example,

general population average life satisfaction in EU-28 was rescaled from 7.1 to 6.8.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

also differ among Member States. This affects LGBTI

partners from Member States with different legisla-

tion who want to legalise their relationship, as well

as same-sex couples and families moving to another

Member State – particularly when they have or wish to

have children. The survey asked respondents who had

relocated to another EU country if they experienced

any restrictions in accessing benefits or public services,

which are available for different-sex couples, because

they have a same-sex partner or spouse. Around 17 %

said they were denied, or had only restricted, access

to services and benefits that are available to different-

sex couples. However, this is based on a very small

number of respondents who had moved to another

EU country.

The survey also asked respondents about their family

life. Out of all respondents, 77 % live with someone

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

else: 67 % live with their partners, while 12 % of all

respondents also live with children belonging to one of

the partners. Overall, 14 % of all LGBTI respondents with

a partner say that they are raising a child. This includes

29 % of bisexual males, 19 % of trans persons, 17 %

of bisexual women and 15 % of lesbian women with

a partner. However, there are considerable country dif-

ferences. The highest proportion of LGBTI respondents

raising children with a partner are found in Denmark

(21 %), Ireland (20 %), the Netherlands (19 %) and Swe-

den (19 %). In all of these countries, same-sex couples

have a legal right to adopt children.

Readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Survey

Data explorer to obtain a more in-depth and full picture

of the situation in different EU Member States.

The majority of respondents who share guardianship

of their or their partner’s child (66 %) say that both

partners are legal guardians. This is mostly indicated

by bisexual men (87 %), trans persons (70 %), intersex

persons (68 %), and bisexual women (67 %). Gay men

less frequently say that this is the case (44 %).

“I find it very difficult to help my child understand my

current relationship with a woman. Feels entangled. Social

models are different from what one experiences at home

and does not know how to manage it. At school these

issues are still considered taboo. I don’t think that issues

like sexuality, diversity, family types, etc. have ever been

discussed so that children would accept them as normal.”

(Greece, Lesbian woman, 41)

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

2�½2�½ Experiencing and reporting discrimination – awareness of

victim support

KEY FINDINGS

One in four (26 %) respondents hide being LGBTI at work.

Those who are more open about being LGBTI at work are less likely to feel discriminated against at work.

Two in 10 (21 %) felt discriminated against at work in the year before the survey.

One in 10 (10 %) felt discriminated against when looking for work in the year before the survey.

More than a third (37 %) felt discriminated against in areas of life other than work, such as in housing,

healthcare or social services, at school or university, in a café, restaurant, bar or night club, at a shop, or

when showing an identification document. The rates are highest for trans (55 %) and intersex (59 %)

respondents.

The majority of LGBTI respondents aged 15-17 have experienced discrimination in some area of life (53 %).

The number is lower for LGBTI respondents aged 18+ (41 %).

Among the different areas of life asked about, the highest share of respondents (22 %) felt discriminated

against in a café, restaurant, bar or nightclub.

One in five (19 %) felt discriminated against in educational settings; 16 % felt discriminated against by

healthcare or social services staff.

Only 11 % of most recent incidents of discrimination were reported to the country’s equality body or

some other organisation. This is the case even though the majority (61 %) knows that their country has

an equality body.

This section outlines selected survey findings on expe-

riencing discrimination for being LGBTI in employment

and in other areas of life. It also presents results on the

prevalence of intersectional discrimination. In addition,

the section looks at how many respondents report dis-

crimination incidents, and at their awareness of organi-

sations that support discrimination victims.

EU law on discrimination

The principle of equal treatment is a fundamental

value of the EU. It ensures both respect for human

dignity and full participation on an equal footing

in economic, cultural and social life.

Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

forbids discrimination based on any ground. This

includes sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin,

genetic features, language, religion or belief,

political or any other opinion, membership of

a national minority, property, birth, disability, age

or sexual orientation.

Moreover, Article 10 of the Treaty on the Function-

ing of the EU requires the EU to combat discrimina-

tion based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or

belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, in defin-

ing and implementing its policies and activities. EU

law protects gender identity to a limited extent

under the protected ground of sex – for example,

in respect to gender-reassignment surgery.

The Employment Equality Directive 2000/78/EC

forbids discrimination based on sexual orienta-

tion only in the context of employment, occupa-

tion and training. However, most Member States

have extended protection on the basis of sexual

orientation, and in some cases gender identity, to

cover some or all fields to which the Race Equal-

ity Directive (2000/43/EC) applies. These fields

include social security and healthcare, education,

and access to and supply of goods and services,

including housing.

EU law also prohibits sex discrimination in

employment and access to goods and services

(the Gender Equality Directive (Recast) 2006/54/

EC and the Goods and Services Directive 2004/113/

EC), partly covering trans people.

2�½2�½1�½ Employment

“When my boss found out that I was gay, she didn’t fire

me (of course, she couldn’t), but she just started to do

everything so I would quit myself. She needed a month to

break me – I did actually quit and she reached her goal.”

(Poland, Lesbian woman, 27)

The survey asked respondents if they felt discriminated

against for being LGBTI when looking for work and, sep-

arately, when at work. More felt discriminated against

at work (21 %) in the 12 months before the survey than

did so when looking for work (10 %). Significantly higher

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

shares of trans (35 %) and intersex respondents (32 %)

felt discriminated at work.

The share of respondents who felt discriminated against

when looking for work differs between countries. In the

EU, the shares of respondents who felt discriminated

against were highest in Greece (19 %), Cyprus (18 %) and

Bulgaria (17 %). They were lowest in Denmark and Swe-

den (both 5 %), as well as in Finland and the Netherlands

(both 6 %). In Serbia, 16 % felt discriminated against

when looking for work. In North Macedonia, 13 % did so.

“I hear homophobic comments almost every day at work,

if not every day it is definitely every other day. It gets so

hard sometimes you feel very ostracized that you are not

normal according to them.”

(Sweden, Gay man, 19)

The share of respondents who felt discriminated against

at work is consistently higher than those who felt dis-

criminated against when looking for a job. However,

this share also varies between countries. In the EU, the

highest proportions of respondents felt discriminated

against at work in Lithuania (32 %), Greece (31 %),

Cyprus (30 %) and Bulgaria (29 %). The lowest pro-

portions did so in Czechia, Finland and the Netherlands

(all 13 %), as well as in Denmark and Luxembourg (both

14 %). In Serbia and North Macedonia, about one in four

felt discriminated against at work for being LGBTI (24 %

and 25 %, respectively).

Table 1:

Respondents who felt discriminated

against due to being LGBTI when

looking for work in the 12 months

before the survey (%)

Country

EU-28

Total

(7)

2�½2�½2�½ Other areas of life

The survey asked respondents if they felt discriminated

against in certain areas of life in the year before the sur-

vey. This included when looking for housing; accessing

healthcare and social services; in educational settings;

when in a shop, café, restaurant, bar or nightclub; and

when showing an identity card or other official docu-

ment that indicates the person’s sex.

“In hotels my partner and I are sometimes not allowed

to sleep in the same bed, even though we have explicitly

stated that. Then there is often ‘a misunderstanding’, or

we come to the room and there are still 2 separate beds.”

(Netherlands, Bisexual Man, 26)

The highest share of respondents felt discriminated

against in a café, restaurant, bar or nightclub (22 %).

This was especially so for younger respondents: 28 %

of those aged 18 to 24 said they experienced this,

compared to 12 % of those aged 55+. This may reflect

the exposure to a risk of discrimination. This relates to

people’s patterns and frequency of going out, which

are very different among the age groups. Income also

appears to play a role. Among respondents who say

they have great difficulty to ‘make ends meet’, 36 % felt

discriminated in these contexts. By contrast, of those

who say they ‘make ends meet’ very easily, 16 % indi-

cated feeling discriminated against.

Source:

Notes: The EU-28 aggregate includes the United King-

dom (UK) because the reference period of

the data collection is from when the UK was a

Member State.

Out of all respondents who looked for work in

the 12 months before the survey (n = 65,591,

n EU-28 = 64,492); weighted results.

Results based on a small number of responses

are statistically less reliable. Thus, results

based on 20 to 49 unweighted observations

in a group total or based on cells with fewer

than 20 unweighted observations are noted in

parentheses. Results based on fewer than 20

unweighted observations in a group total are

not published.

The presented percentages refer to respond-

ents who answered ‘yes’ to at least one situa-

tion in question C1: “During the last 12 months,

have you personally felt discriminated against

because of being [RESPONDENT CATEGORY] in

any of the following situations: A. When look-

ing for a job”

Besides ‘yes’, respondents could answer ‘no’

and ‘don’t know’. The percentage of respond-

ents who answered ‘don’t know’ to all rel-

evant situations did not exceed 5.4 % in any

breakdown category in the table.

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Table 2:

Respondents who felt discriminated

against due to being LGBTI at work in

the 12 months before the survey (%)

Country

EU-28

Total

Every fifth respondent (19 %) felt discriminated against

when in contact with school or university staff. Every

sixth (16 %) did so when in contact with healthcare

or social services staff. Notably, 52 % of respondents

who assess their general health as ‘very bad’, and 36 %

of those who assess this as ‘bad’, felt discriminated

against in healthcare settings. Fewer who assessed

their health as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ did so (11 % and

14 %, respectively).

Across all LGBTI groups, the majority (53%) of young

adolescents who participated in the survey (aged 15 to

17) felt discriminated against in at least one area of life

in the 12 months before the survey. By contrast, 41 %

of adult respondents (aged 18+) did so.

The share is even higher for trans (69 %) and intersex

(62 %) respondents aged 15 to 17. This shows a need for

policy measures targeting children and young people

belonging to these groups. The results show differences

between countries. This age group says they felt dis-

criminated against at the highest rates in Greece (71 %),

Croatia (68 %) and Bulgaria (67 %). They do so at the

lowest rates in Finland (25 %) and Sweden (31 %).

The readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Sur-

vey Data explorer to obtain a more in-depth and full

picture of the situation in different EU Member States.

“School bullying in France almost led me to suicide. I was

in long-term depression with hospitalization. No reaction

from staff members or faculty.”

(France, Gay man, 24)

The majority of survey respondents who are lesbian,

gay or bisexual do not consider references to a per-

son’s sex on an identity card or official document to be

a problem. By comparison, 25 % of trans and intersex

respondents do consider it a problem.

“I was refused medical care from a nurse at a general

practice due to being [Trans] and thus making her un-

comfortable. I then had to be assigned to another general

practice to receive my injections.”

(United Kingdom, Trans

woman, Bisexual, 22)

Notes: The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom

(UK) because the reference period of the data col-

lection is from when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who were at work in

the 12 months before the survey (n = 90,457,

n EU-28 = 89,097); weighted results.

Results based on a small number of responses

are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based

on 20 to 49 unweighted observations in a group

total or based on cells with fewer than 20

unweighted observations are noted in parenthe-

ses. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted

observations in a group total are not published.

The presented percentages refer to respond-

ents who answered ‘yes’ to at least one situa-

tion in question C1: “During the last 12 months,

have you personally felt discriminated against

because of being [RESPONDENT CATEGORY] in

any of the following situations: B. At work.”

Besides ‘yes’, respondents could answer ‘no’

and ‘don’t know’. The percentage of respond-

ents who answered ‘don’t know’ to all relevant

situations did not exceed 5.4 % in any break-

down category in the table.

Source: FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 11: Respondents who felt discriminated against due to being LGBTI in area other than employment

in the 12 months before survey in EU-28, by area of life and group (%)

Total EU-28

Renting / buying

house / apartment

Healthcare/social

services personnel

Area of life

School/university

personnel

At a café, restaurant,

bar or nightclub

At a shop

Personal identiﬁcation

Lesbian

Gay

Bisexual women

Bisexual men

Trans

Intersex

Notes:

Respondent group

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who were discriminated against in at least one area other than employment in the 12

months before the survey (n = 126,709); the totals vary in individual areas of life; weighted results.

The presented percentages refer to respondents who answered ‘yes’ to at least one situation in question C1:

“During the last 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against because of being [RESPONDENT CAT-

EGORY] in any of the following situations: C. When looking for a house or apartment to rent or buy (by people

working in a public or private housing agency, by a landlord); D. By healthcare or social services personnel (e.g.

a receptionist, nurse or doctor, a social worker); E. By school/university personnel. This could have happened to

you as a student or as a parent; F. At a café, restaurant, bar or nightclub; G. At a shop; H. When showing your ID

or any official document that identifies your sex ”.

Besides ‘yes’, respondents could answer ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’. The percentage of respondents who answered

‘don’t know’ to all relevant situations did not exceed 0.54 % in any breakdown category in the chart.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

2�½2�½3�½ Intersectional and multiple

discrimination

People may experience discrimination based on multiple

grounds. For example, a lesbian woman may face dis-

crimination both as a lesbian and as a woman. The survey

allowed participants to select grounds additional to being

LGBTI as grounds for their perceived discrimination.

Four in 10 respondents (40 %) who self-identify as

members of an ethnic minority or have an immigrant

background indicated, as an additional ground for dis-

crimination, ethnic origin or immigrant background.

Meanwhile, 15 % indicated their skin colour as an addi-

tional ground for discrimination.

More than a third of respondents (36 %) who identify

themselves as persons with disabilities indicated dis-

ability as an additional ground. Of those who belong

to a religious minority, 28 % indicated religion as an

additional ground.

between survey countries. For example, the reporting

rates are 26 % in Belgium, 21 % in the Netherlands, and

20 % in Italy. By comparison, in Latvia, almost none

were reported (only one incident was). In Slovenia and

Slovakia, the reporting rates are around 5–6 %.

Incidents that are not reported cannot reach the respon-

sible authorities for further investigation. This reinforces

an atmosphere of impunity, which damages people’s

trust in public institutions and access to justice. The

sense of disappointment and helplessness is conveyed

by the respondents to this survey: 41 % indicate, as

a main reason for not reporting, that “nothing would

happen or change”.

FRA conducts surveys both on majority populations – for

example, on violence against women – and on minori-

ties – for example, on discrimination experiences of

migrants and minorities or on Jewish people’s expe-

rience of antisemitism. All of these consistently find

very low reporting rates of discrimination and abuse

across the EU.

Readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Survey

Data explorer to obtain a more in-depth and full picture

of the situation in different EU Member States.

2�½2�½4�½ Reporting discrimination

The survey asked respondents who felt discriminated

against as LGBTI in any area of life in the year before

the survey if they or anyone else reported the most

recent incident to any organisation or institution. Over-

all, across the EU, on average only 11 % were reported

anywhere.

Higher reporting rates are observed in Luxembourg and

Italy (both 19 %), as well as in Belgium (16 %). The

lowest rates are indicated in Czechia (4 %), Latvia and

Slovenia.

Among all LGBTI respondents, intersex persons are

slightly more likely to have reported the last incident

of discrimination (17 %) than trans persons (13 %), gay

men (12 %), lesbian women (10 %), bisexual men (10 %)

and bisexual women (9 %).

Overall, a higher proportion of respondents indicates

reporting the most recent discrimination incident at

work (14 %). But there are pronounced differences

2�½2�½5�½ Awareness of organisations

providing victim support

The majority of LGBTI respondents (66 %) was aware

of organisations that can offer support or advice to vic-

tims of discrimination in their country. However, results

vary greatly across countries. For example, the highest

share of respondents aware of such organisations is

in Sweden (77 %), and the lowest in Slovakia (51 %).

On average, 61 % of all respondents have at least heard

of one equality body in their country. Again, results

vary greatly across countries. In Poland, for example,

almost all respondents (93 %) have heard of the equal-

ity body ‘Rzecznik

Praw Obywatelskich’.

But only one

out of three respondents have heard of the respec-

tive equality bodies in Slovakia, Slovenia, Italy and

Luxembourg.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 12: Reporting the most recent incident of discrimination, by country and group (%)

a,b,c

EU-28

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual women [EU-28]

Bisexual men [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who felt personally discriminated in at least one area of daily life in the 12 months before

the survey (EU-28, n = 59,383, EU-28 + 2, n = 60,424); weighted results.

Question: “Did you or anyone else report it to any organisations or institutions?”

Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49

unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are

noted in parenthesis. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 13: Reasons for not reporting the most recent incident of discrimination, EU-28+2 (%)

a,b

Nothing would happen or change

Not worth reporting it -

'it happens all the time'

Concerned that the incident would

not have been taken seriously

Did not want to reveal my sexual

orientation or gender identity or

variation of sex characteristics

Do not trust the authorities

Dealt with the problem myself /

with help from family or friends

Didn't know how or where to report

Felt too hurt, traumatised, stressed or

annoyed to deal with it actively

Other reasons

Fear of intimidation by perpetrators

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who felt personally discriminated in at least one area of daily life in the 12 months before

the survey and did not report the most recent incident to any organisation or institution (EU-28+2, n = 53,719);

weighted results.

Question: “Did you or anyone else report it to any organisations or institutions? [Multiple responses allowed]”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

2�½3�½ Hate-motivated violence and harassment

KEY FINDINGS

One in 10 LGBTI respondents (11 %) in the EU were physically or sexually attacked in the five years before

the survey because they are LGBTI. Trans (17 %) and intersex (22 %) respondents experienced attacks at

higher rates.

Only one in five (21 %) incidents of physical or sexual violence was reported to any organisation, including

the police (14 %).

In the year before the survey, two in five LGBTI respondents (38 %) experienced harassment for being

LGBTI. Rates are even higher (47 %) for respondents aged 15 to 17. Among all LGBTI respondents, trans

(48 %) and intersex (42 %) indicate the highest rates of harassment.

Only one in 10 (10 %) incidents of such harassment were reported anywhere. Just 4 % were reported to

the police.

On average, of those respondents across the EU who did not report the most recent incident of physical

or sexual violence to the police, 25 % said that they did not do so because of fear of homophobic and/or

transphobic reactions by the police. One in three (32 %) trans respondents did not report such incidents

for fear of transphobic reactions from the police.

This section outlines selected survey findings on physi-

cal or sexual attacks and harassment for being LGBTI,

the characteristics of the most recent physical and sex-

ual attack, and the impact of such incidents on victims’

health and well-being. It also presents selected results

on the prevalence and nature of harassment of LGBTI

respondents, on whether they report incidents to the

police and other organisations, as well as on the reasons

some give for not reporting them. The section concludes

with selected results on victimisation experiences and

avoidance strategies due to safety concerns.

gender expression when recognising the rights of

victims, helping to ensure that victims of crime

receive appropriate information, support and

protection, and are able to participate in criminal

proceedings. Member States are obliged to carry

out individual assessments to identify specific

protection needs of victims of crimes committed

with a bias or discriminatory motive (Article 22

of the directive).

See Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing mini-

mum standards on the rights, support and protection

of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework

Decision 2001/220/JHA.

A matter of rights: protection

from violence

Violence and crime motivated by a victim’s per-

ceived sexual orientation or gender identity

affects the right to human dignity (Article 1 of the

Charter), the right to life (Article 2 of the Charter)

and the integrity of the person (Article 3 of the

Charter).

Crime motivated by prejudice, known as hate

crime or bias-motivated crime, affects not only the

individuals targeted, but also their communities

and societies as a whole. Such violence and har-

assment undermine both people’s actual safety

and their perceived levels of safety. Because of its

impact, EU law recognises hate-motivated crime

as requiring particular attention – for example, in

the context of the Victims’ Rights Directive.

The Victims’ Rights Directive protects the rights

of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and inter-

sex (LGBTI) victims of hate crime.* It includes the

grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and

“I have been attacked in the corner of my street by

a group of men, only because I was holding hands with my

partner at the time.”

(Germany, Gay man, 28)

Disaggregated data crucial for

countering violence and harassment

Some EU Member States do collect official data

on hate-motivated incidents against LGBTI

people as a sub-category of police statistics on

recorded crimes. LGBTI civil society organisations

also publish statistics on incidents reported to

them. However, not all Member States publish

disaggregated data on hate crime motivated by

sexual orientation, gender identity or expres-

sion. Moreover, only a small percentage of

such incidents are reported to police or other

authorities.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

The EU High Level Group on combating racism,

xenophobia and other forms of intolerance has

met since 2016 to identify ways to tackle hatred

and intolerance more effectively in EU Member

States, including against LGBTI people. The group

has mandated FRA to coordinate a specific sub-

group, which develops methodologies to encour-

age reporting, recording and collecting data

on hate crime. This can help national authori-

ties improve their own collection of such data,

enhance inter-agency cooperation, and improve

cooperation with civil society.

Survey data, such as those presented here, are

crucial to better understand the extent and

nature of the problem, to identify sub-popula-

tions most at risk, and to understand how best

to inform victims about their rights and avail-

able support – for example, if they choose not

to report to the police, what other services they

can contact.

The survey results concerning harassment, physi-

cal and sexual violence can also be used to pop-

ulate fully or partially a number of specific UN

Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDG) indicators

in terms of the experiences of LGBTI people, iden-

tifying which groups in the population are at risk

of being left behind as progress is made.* Some

of the SDG indicators on harassment and violence

have also been adopted as a part of a set of indi-

cators that together form the LGBTI Inclusion

Index developed by UNDP and the World Bank.**

SDG indicators concerning experiences of violence

and harassment include the following: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 10.3.1,

11.7.2, 16.1.3, 16.1.4, 16.2.1, 16.2.3, 16.3.1. and 16.b.1. For

more details, see the

UN’s indicator list.

** See UNDP (2018),

A set of proposed indicators for

the LGBTI inclusion index,

New York: UNDP.

the respondents point to could involve a wide range

of incidents. A ‘physical attack’ could mean a slap or

being pulled by the hair, all the way to being strangled

or stabbed. A ‘sexual attack’ could refer to unwanted

sexual touching or to rape, as well as to other forms of

sexual violence.

Asked about the five years before the survey, one in

10 respondents (11 %) indicate that they were physi-

cally or sexually attacked because of being LGBTI. This

could involve one or more incidents, taking place in

public or private settings. Trans and intersex respond-

ents indicate experiencing physical or sexual attacks

at higher rates during this timeframe: 17 % and 22 %,

respectively.

Among bisexual men, trans and intersex respondents,

experiencing physical or sexual attack is more strongly

related to their openness in everyday life. The more

open they are about being bisexual, trans or intersex,

the more they are at risk of attack. By contrast, there

are only small differences in terms of prevalence of

incidents in other respondent groups between people

who are very open or not at all open about being LGBTI.

(The survey measured openness with a four-category

scale, calculated based on respondents’ answers on

openness about being LGBTI to their family, friends,

neighbours, at work or when using health services.)

Specifically, among trans respondents who are very

open about being trans, 24 % experienced a physical or

sexual assault due to being trans in the five years before

the survey. Similarly, 26 % of intersex respondents who

are very open experienced such attacks.

Experiencing hate-motivated physical or sexual attack is

most common among young adults (defined as 18–24).

Among respondents aged 18 to 24, 14 % experienced

such an attack in the 5 years before the survey. The

percentage of respondents who experienced a physical

and/or sexual attack decreases with age, down to 7 %

among respondents who are 55+. Among respondents

aged 15 to 17, 11 % experienced a physical or sexual

attack in the 5 years before the survey due to being

LGBTI.

The prevalence of attacks varies only slightly based on

respondents’ educational backgrounds: it is 13 % among

respondents with lower secondary education or less,

and 10 % among respondents with tertiary education.

The highest rates of physical or sexual attacks moti-

vated by the victim being LGBTI are observed in Poland

(15 %), Romania (15 %), Belgium (14 %) and France

(14 %). The lowest rates are found in Portugal (5 %)

and Malta (6 %). The rates are higher in the candidate

countries of North Macedonia (19 %) and Serbia (17 %).

2�½3�½1�½ Physical or sexual attacks

“Everything happened a few years ago, when my parents

found out that I was gay. I was subjected to physical and

psychological violence and was threatened. They were

heavy punching, bullying me, and keeping me from leav-

ing home, restricting from contacting my friends, class-

mates.”

(Lithuania, Gay man, 20)

The survey asked respondents whether they experi-

enced physical or sexual attacks, and whether they

believe these happened because they are LGBTI. The

survey did not define forms of physical or sexual vio-

lence, allowing respondents to consider every experi-

ence that they would describe as a physical or sexual

attack or as involving both. This means the experiences

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 14: Experiencing a physical and/or sexual attack for being LGBTI, in the five years before the

survey (%)

a,b

EU-28

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual women [EU-28]

Bisexual men [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents (EU-28 n = 137,508, EU-28 + 2 n = 139,799); weighted results.

Question: “In the last 5 years, how many times have you been physically or sexually attacked at home or else-

where (street, on public transport, at your workplace, etc.) because you are [RESPONDENT CATEGORY]?” The

results show the percentage of respondents who have experienced one or more incidents.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

In the 12 months before the survey, 5 % of respond-

ents were attacked physically or sexually in a way that

respondents perceived as having to do with them being

LGBTI. The highest rates are again found among trans

(9 %) and intersex (13 %) respondents.

Incidents involving sexual violence show a differ-

ent pattern: 16 % were committed by somebody the

respondent described as ‘an acquaintance or friend’

(compared with 4 % of physical attacks committed by

‘an acquaintance or friend’).

In more than three in four cases (77 %), the perpetrator

of the most recent physical or sexual attack was a man.

In 13 % of cases, the perpetrator was a woman. In 8 %,

the incident involved both male and female perpetra-

tors. The percentage of men as perpetrators of sexual

attacks is even higher – some 84 % of sexual attacks

involved one or more male perpetrators.

Young respondents experienced a higher percentage of

incidents perpetrated by women (20 % of incidents men-

tioned by respondents aged 15 to 17), though men also

form the majority of perpetrators in the physical and sex-

ual attacks experienced by this age group. Respondents

aged 15 to 17 are particularly likely to experience physical

or sexual attacks in school. In many cases, the perpetra-

tors are their peers: of those who were victims of physical

or sexual attack, 38 % described the perpetrator(s) as

‘someone from school, college or university’, and 36 %

as a ‘teenager or group of teenagers’.

Respondents described most incidents of physical

or sexual attack as having taken place in public – in

a street, square, park, parking lot or other public place

(51 %). Other commonly mentioned locations are a café,

restaurant, pub or club (12 %), and on public transport

(10 %). Compared with physical attacks, sexual attacks

were more likely to take place at the respondent’s home

or in a café, restaurant, pub or club. These different

locations likely reflect different types of sexual vio-

lence. Sexual violence in private settings may often

involve perpetrators the victim knows. Incidents such as

sexual touching might take place in public places, such

as cafés, restaurants, pubs or clubs, involving acquaint-

ances or strangers as perpetrators.

The survey did not collect more detailed information

on the type of violence (acts of physical or sexual

violence) to further explore the relationship of vari-

ous forms of violence, types of perpetrators and set-

tings. FRA’s 2012 survey on violence against women

shows that, in severe cases of sexual violence – such

as forced sexual intercourse – the perpetrator is often

the victim’s (former) partner. Meanwhile, unwelcome

touching, hugging or kissing often involves unknown

perpetrators or a victim’s friend or acquaintance.

Context of most recent physical or sexual

attack

“My former partner and I were mobbed on the way home

from a party by several male people and verbally abused

because we held hands.”

(Germany, Bisexual Woman, 24)

Respondents who experienced a hate-motivated physi-

cal or sexual attack in the five years before the survey

were asked to provide further details about the most

recent incident. Most victims (70 %) said that the inci-

dent involved only physical violence. Meanwhile, 29 %

described it as a sexual attack – either solely or com-

bined with a physical attack.

There are notable differences between respondent

groups and between survey countries in terms of expe-

riencing sexual attacks. 44 % of bisexual women and

40 % of intersex respondents say that the most recent

incident involved a sexual attack. By contrast, 18 % of

gay men say this.

The highest rates of respondents describing the most

recent incident as a sexual attack are in Cyprus, Swe-

den and Austria (53 %, 49 % and 47 %, respectively).

By contrast, only 15 % of respondents in Poland, 15 %

in Hungary and 19 % in Romania perceived the most

recent incident as involving a sexual attack. However,

Poland and Romania have the highest rates of hate-

motivated physical

sexual attacks against LGBTI

people among the EU 28 Member States, as measured

in the survey, while Serbia and North Macedonia have

even higher rates.

A majority of hate-motivated physical or sexual attacks

is committed by a single perpetrator (56 %). However,

a notable share (44 %) was committed by two or more

perpetrators. Incidents that involved a sexual attack

were more likely to have been committed by a single

perpetrator (73 % of incidents, compared with 27 %

that involved two or more perpetrators). Half of the

incidents involving physical attack (49 %) were com-

mitted by a single perpetrator.

Respondents could select one or more categories from

a list that described the perpetrator(s) of the physical

or sexual attack. Half of all incidents were described

as involving an unknown person (50 %). Meanwhile,

19 % describe the perpetrators as ‘teenager or group

of teenagers’, and 9 % as ‘someone from school, col-

lege or university’.

Impact of physical or sexual attack

By definition, hate-motivated violence has an impact on

the entire LGBTI community, sending a message that they

are not accepted. Violence and hate-motivated violence

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

also has negative consequences for the individual victim.

In the survey, respondents could describe the conse-

quences of the most recent physical or sexual attack.

Respondents could choose from a list of consequences

they may have experienced, and also had the option to

indicate that the incident had other consequences, or that

it did not affect their health or well-being.

“I live in a country where I am afraid to be free and

publicly express my feelings to my partner, because of

the extreme right-wing perceptions of the majority of the

population and the fact that many neighbourhood groups

of a far-right party are attacking LGBTI people.”

(Greece,

Bisexual woman, 22)

Overall, one in three victims of physical attack or sexual

attack (33 %) said that the incident did not have an

impact on them. However, the majority of all respond-

ents who were victims of physical or sexual attack

selected at least one or more impact categories.

Both in cases of physical or sexual attack, fewer than

10 % of the victims indicated that they needed medical

assistance or hospitalisation, that they were unable to

work, or that they faced financial problems due to the

incident. However, many victims said that the incident

caused psychological problems (such as depression or

anxiety) or that it made them afraid to go out and visit

places. Figure 15 shows the results for these two types

of impact, by type of incident and respondent category.

Both regarding physical and sexual attacks, more trans

and intersex respondents indicate negative conse-

quences. This is the case both in terms of psychological

problems and being afraid to go out or visit places. The

higher rate of psychological problems such as depres-

sion or anxiety among trans and intersex victims of

physical and sexual attacks shows the importance of

ensuring psychological support for these victims.

The questionnaire did not use the term ‘harassment’

to avoid varying interpretations of what this means.

Instead, the survey asked respondents if they had expe-

rienced specific acts of harassment.

Specifically, it asked if somebody had made offensive

or threatening comments in person, such as insulting

or calling them names; threatened them with violence

in person; made offensive or threatening gestures or

stared at them inappropriately; loitered, waited for them

or deliberately followed them in a threatening way; sent

them offensive or threatening e-mails or text messages

(SMS); or posted offensive or threatening comments

about them online – for example, on Facebook or Twitter.

“My girlfriend and I were walking down the street in South

London, holding hands. A man spat at us, and shouted that

we were disgusting.”

(United Kingdom, Bisexual Woman, 25)

Overall, in the twelve months before the survey, two

in five respondents (38 %) in the EU experienced one

or more of these acts because they are LGBTI. The har-

assment rates are quite similar across the EU. Trans

and intersex respondents report the highest rates of

LGBTI-related harassment.

The survey shows only small differences in the rates of

physical or sexual attacks experienced by respondents

depending on their openness about being LGBTI. But

harassment rates do vary depending on such openness.

Among respondents who are very open about being

LGBTI, 40 % have experienced harassment. By compari-

son, 31 % of those who are not open at all have faced

harassment.

The distribution of the results is similar

for all LGBTI categories: among respondents who are

almost never open, the rate of experiencing harassment

is consistently lower than among respondents who are

very open.

The results are particularly worrying regarding the

younger age groups (15 to 17 and 18 to 24). On aver-

age, these groups report more often experiencing har-

assment for being LGBTI in the year before the survey

across all harassment categories. Moreover, 51 % of

respondents aged 15 to 17 said that someone from

school, college or university perpetrated the most

recent incident of harassment they experienced due

to being LGBTI. Such incidents could take place on

school premises or on the way to school – however,

42 % specified that the incident took place at school.

2�½3�½2�½ Harassment

The survey asked respondents if they experienced situ-

ations that they considered offensive or threatening,

including incidents of a sexual nature. These incidents

could take place anywhere, in private or in public set-

tings. Respondents were first asked if they had experi-

enced such incidents, then asked whether they believe

the incident was motivated by them being LGBTI.

13 The survey measured openness with a four-category scale,

calculated based on respondents’ answers about being

openly LGBTI to their family, friends, neighbours, at work or

when using health services: almost never open, rarely open,

fairly open and very open.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 15: Two most mentioned forms of impact on health and well-being of physical or sexual attacks, by

type of incident and group (EU-28, %)

a,b

Psychological problems (e.g. depression, anxiety)

Lesbian

Physical attack

Gay

Bisexual women

Bisexual men

Trans

Intersex

Total

Sexual attack, or both sexual

and physical attack

Lesbian

Gay

Bisexual women

Bisexual men

Trans

Intersex

Total

Afraid to go out or visit places

Lesbian

Physical attack

Gay

Bisexual women

Bisexual men

Trans

Intersex

Total

Sexual attack, or both sexual

and physical attack

Lesbian

Gay

Bisexual women

Bisexual men

Trans

Intersex

Total

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who described in the survey the impact of the most recent physical attack (EU-28 n =

12,543) or sexual attack (EU-28 n = 4,999) that took place because they are LGBTI, in the five years before the

survey; weighted results.

Question: “How did this incident affect your health and well-being? C. I was afraid to go out and visit places, D.

I had psychological problems (e.g. depression or anxiety).”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 16: Harassment experienced due to being LGBTI, in the 12 months before the survey (%)

a,b

EU-28

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual women [EU-28]

Bisexual men [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents (EU-28 n = 137,508, EU-28 + 2 n = 139,799); weighted results.

Question: “How many of these incidents [that is, each of the six acts of harassment asked about in the survey,

experiences in the 12 months before the survey] happened to you because you are [RESPONDENT CATEGORY]?”

The results show the percentage of respondents who have experienced one or more incidents.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 17: Harassment experienced due to being LGBTI, by age group and harassment type, in the 12

months before the survey (EU-28, %)

a,b,c

Any act of harassment

Verbal harassment

in person

15-17

18-24

Non-verbal harassment

in person

25-39

40-54

55+

Cyberharassment

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents (EU-28 n = 137,508); weighted results.

Question: “How many of these incidents [that is, each of the six acts of harassment asked about in the survey,

experiences in the 12 months before the survey] happened to you because you are [RESPONDENT CATEGORY]?”

The results show the percentage of respondents who have experienced one or more incidents.

‘Verbal harassment in person’ includes answer categories 1) made offensive or threatening comments to you in

person, such as insulting you or calling you names, and 2) threatened you with violence in person. ‘Non-verbal

harassment in person’ includes answer categories 3) made offensive or threatening gestures or stared at you

inappropriately, and 4) loitered, waited for you or deliberately followed you in a threatening way. ‘Cyberharass-

ment’ includes answer categories 5) Sent you emails or text messages (SMS) that were offensive or threatening,

and 6) posted offensive or threatening comments about you on the internet, for example on Facebook or Twit-

ter. ‘Any act of harassment’ includes all six acts of harassment listed above.

Source : FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

The competent education authorities should take into

account such findings when designing and implement-

ing anti-bullying strategies and measures in schools and

other educational settings.

Harassment on multiple grounds

“As soon as we behave as a couple (holding hands, hug-

ging or kissing) we can assume that a man or often groups

of men will start making lewd remarks/gestures or ap-

proach us to stand near us and openly to stare.”

(Austria,

Lesbian woman, 27)

Other personal characteristics in addition to being LGBTI

may amplify the experience of hate-motivated harass-

ment. For example, this might be the case for a young

trans person, a Muslim lesbian woman or a gay Roma

man. They may be harassed because of only one of their

characteristics, e.g. being trans, lesbian or gay – or also

because they are young and trans, Muslim and lesbian,

or gay and Roma.

Respondents had the opportunity to indicate if any

of their harassment experiences in the year before

the survey was motivated by any other characteristic

in addition to being LGBTI – such as ethnic origin or

immigrant background, skin colour, sex, age, religion

or belief, and disability. The results differ depending

on the LGBTI group.

Among gay men, 72 % indicated that the harassment

they experienced did not involve any other ground. By

contrast, 46 % of trans and 60 % of intersex respond-

ents said they were also harassed due to their sexual

orientation. Of respondents who experienced harass-

ment due to being intersex, 41 % also said that they

were harassed based on their gender identity and

expression.

Meanwhile, 46 % of bisexual women respondents

and 29 % of lesbian respondents indicated that they

were harassed because of their sex in addition to or

as part of being harassed for being bisexual or lesbian.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

By contrast, only 2 % of gay respondents said that,

in addition to being harassed due to being gay, they

experienced harassment because of their sex.

group indicated that the incident happened at school or

university. Across all respondent age groups, some 7 %

said they had been harassed for being LGBTI at work.

Context of most recent incident of

harassment

“Neo-Nazis tried to stab me with a knife because I was

kissing a boy in public. Nobody cares – not the police, the

government, or the people.”(Croatia,

Gay man, 20)

Respondents who experienced harassment due to

being LGBTI in the five years before the survey were

asked to describe the perpetrators of the incident and

where it happened. Most described the perpetrator(s)

as someone they did not know (52 %), followed by

a teenager or group of teenagers (20 %), or someone

from school, college or university (14 %). Respondents

could select more than one category to characterise the

perpetrators depending on the situation experienced.

Among respondents aged 15 to 17, 51 % of harassment

incidents involved perpetrators from school, college or

university. This highlights that schools and teachers play

a critical role in preventing and addressing harassment

against LGBTI children and youth.

Meanwhile, 17 % of respondents aged 15 to 17 indicated

that the perpetrator was an acquaintance or friend. By

comparison, 9 % among respondents of all age groups

in the EU say this was the case. Of those aged 15 to

17, 38 % say that the perpetrator was a teenager or

a group of teenagers, suggesting that these incidents

took place among peers. This is further supported by

the finding that only 28 % of respondents in this age

group identified the perpetrator as someone they did

not know. By comparison, 52 % of overall respondents

in the EU say this is the case.

Two in three incidents of harassment reported by

respondents (67 %) involved a male perpetrator. Mean-

while, 16 % involved both men and women as perpe-

trators, and 14 % of incidents involved only women.

Respondents were not able to identify the perpetrator(s)

in only 3 % of incidents. Some 55 % of incidents involved

only one perpetrator; 45 % involved two or more. For

example, this could mean that the victim was insulted or

threatened by a group of people, or that several people

posted offensive comments about them online, such as

on social media.

According to the respondents, 42 % of the harassment

incidents took place in a street, square, park, car park or

other public place. Meanwhile, 14 % took place online,

including on social media. Again, young respondents (15

to 17) mention the school environment as the place where

many harassment incidents take place: 42 % in this age

2�½3�½3�½ Reporting violence and

harassment

“Already when receiving my formal complaint, the police

made homophobic statements. Despite inquiries in the

aftermath, nothing happened. That’s why I avoided filing

complaints in later cases. At the police I felt the homopho-

bia to be even worse than in general society.”

(Germany,

Gay man, 30)

The share of respondents who reported harassment to

any organisation is very low (10 %). The rate of respond-

ents who reported harassment to the police is even

lower: 4 %. Physical or sexual attacks are reported at

higher rates. Still, only 21 % of respondents reported

such incidents to the police or any of the other organi-

sations listed in the survey.

Reporting rates of hate-motivated harassment to the

police are low across all EU Member States. They range

from 6 % in the United Kingdom, Malta and Denmark; 2 %

in Cyprus, Czechia and Luxembourg; to 1 % in Slovakia.

“I am also very sceptical about police work, that is,

I believe that violence can be reported in Croatia only

when a person has suffered severe physical violence or

encounters discrimination in public institutions (where the

name of the perpetrator can be accurately stated and the

discrimination is described in detail).”

(Croatia, Lesbian

woman, 27)

Few harassment cases are reported to the police

irrespective of Member State. But there are notable

differences between Member States in the rate of

respondents who report physical or sexual attacks

to the police. For example, 22 % of respondents in

the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom said they

reported to the police the most recent incident of physi-

cal or sexual attack that took place because they are

LGBTI. In contrast, only 4 % of respondents in Romania

and 5 % in Hungary indicated doing so.

These results suggest differing levels of trust in law

enforcement among LGBTI people across Member

14 In addition to the countries listed here, there are other EU

Member States with the same percentage results concerning

reporting harassment incidents to the police. Those countries

are not mentioned here because their results are based on

fewer than 20 observations and so should be considered less

reliable.

15 In addition to Hungary and Romania, there are other EU

Member States with low rates of reporting physical or sexual

attacks to the police. Those countries are not mentioned

here given that their results are based on fewer than 20

observations and therefore should be considered less

reliable.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 18: Reporting most recent harassment incident and physical or sexual attack (in five years before

survey) to any organisation (incl. police) and specifically to police (EU-28, %)

a,b

Harassment

Physical or sexual attack

Lesbian [EU-28]

Gay [EU-28]

Bisexual women [EU-28]

Bisexual men [EU-28]

Trans [EU-28]

Intersex [EU-28]

Total [EU-28]

Reported to any organisation (incl. police)

Notes:

Reported to police

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who described in the survey the most recent incident of harassment (EU-28 n = 67,172) or

physical or sexual attack (EU-28 n = 17,744) that took place because they are LGBTI, in the five years before the

survey; weighted results.

Question: “Did you or anyone else report it to the following organisations or institutions?

- Police

- National human rights institutions/equality bodies/ombudspersons

- LGBTI organisation

- General victim support organisation

- Hospital or other medical service

- Someone in organisation/institution where it happened (at work, service provider)

- The media

- Other organisation

- No, the incident was not reported to any organisation”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

States. A lack of such trust undermines LGBTI people’s

readiness to exercise their right to seek redress and

protection by reporting hate-motivated crimes. The

results may also reflect negative experiences that LGBTI

respondents – or their friends, relatives and colleagues –

may have had in earlier contact with the police.

Readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Survey

Data explorer to obtain a more in-depth and full picture

of the situation in different EU Member States.

Respondents who said they did not report the most recent

physical or sexual attack or harassment to the police were

asked to elaborate on their reasons. The most common

reasons include thinking that the police would not or could

not do anything; not trusting the police; or fear of a homo-

phobic and/or transphobic reaction if they reported to

the police. In addition, 51 % of victims of harassment

and 33 % of victims of physical or sexual attack indicated

that they considered the incident too minor or not serious

enough to merit reporting it to the police.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 19: Reporting to the police the most recent physical or sexual attack due to being LGBTI, in five

years before the survey (%)

a,b,c

-2

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who described in the survey the most recent physical or sexual attack that took place

because they are LGBTI, in the five years before the survey (EU-28 n = 17,744, EU-28 + 2 n = 18,181); weighted

results.

Question: “Did you or anyone else report it to the following organisations or institutions? - Police.”

Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49

unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations are

noted in parenthesis. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

On average, 25 % of all respondents in the EU men-

tioned fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic

reaction from police as the reason for not reporting

a physical or sexual attack. Close to half of respond-

ents who did not report in Latvia (47 %) mentioned this

reason, followed by Bulgaria (40 %), Lithuania (39 %),

Romania (38 %) and Cyprus (38 %). Overall, across the

EU, trans respondents in particular indicated being wor-

ried about how the police would react, with 32 % afraid

of a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction and thus

deciding not to report the incident.

These results should be considered when developing

measures to ensure that the police treat LGBTI people

respectfully when approached to report incidents of

physical or sexual attack or harassment.

family members and friends, or incidents reported in

the media. For instance, people may prefer a route with

better lighting to the shortest but poorly lit route, or

may avoid crossing a square or a park frequented by

rowdy people.

Such avoidance behaviours affect people’s quality of

life. Relevant authorities – such as law enforcement

and local authorities – have a duty to take all measures

necessary to protect the fundamental right to liberty

and security.

“Holding hands with my partner, I move exclusively in lo-

cations for LGBTI or at relevant events.”

(Germany, Lesbian

woman, 29)

Overall, one in three respondents (33 %) indicated that

they often or always avoid certain places or locations

for fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed

because of being LGBTI. Meanwhile, 36 % said they

avoid them on rare occasions, and 31 % that they never

avoid them (Figure 21).

The results show large differences between Member

States. For example, 40 % or more of respondents in

2�½3�½4�½ Avoiding certain locations –

feelings of safety

People may avoid specific places or locations where

they feel vulnerable. Avoidance behaviours can result

from one’s own negative experiences, experiences of

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 20: Not reporting most recent physical or sexual attack due to being LGBTI to the police, out of fear

of homophobic and/or transphobic reaction, in five years before survey (%)

a,b,c

se Les

Bi al w G n [

-2

se o a EU

xu m y [ -2

al an EU 8]

m [ -2

Tr an EU- 8]

In a [E 28

te ns U ]

rs [E -2

ex U 8]

[E -28

U- ]

]

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who described in the survey the reasons for not reporting the most recent incident of

physical or sexual attack (EU-28 n = 15,378, EU-28+2 n = 15,752) to the police (incidents that took place because

the respondents is LGBTI, in the five years before the survey); weighted results.

Question: “Why did you not report it [physical or sexual attack] to the police? – Fear of a homophobic and/or

transphobic reaction from the police.”

Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Thus, results based on 20 to 49

unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with fewer than 20 unweighted observations

are noted in parenthesis. Results based on fewer than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not

published.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Lithuania, Hungary

and France indicate that they often or always avoid

certain places or locations for fear of being assaulted,

threatened or harassed. By comparison, under 20 % of

respondents do so in Denmark, Luxembourg, Austria

and Finland.

Readers are encouraged to use the FRA LGBTI Survey

Data explorer to obtain more insights of the situation

in different EU Member States.

Across the EU, intersex respondents indicate the highest

rate (41 %) of often or always avoiding certain locations,

followed by trans and gay men (each 37 %).

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 21: Respondents who ‘often’ or ‘always’ avoid certain places or locations for fear of being

assaulted, threatened or harassed due to being LGBTI (%)

a,b

al Gan

U-2

Bi w

se o ay [EU

xu m [ -2

al en EU 8]

m [E -2

Tr en [ U-28]

In an E 8

te s U- ]

rs [E 28

ex U ]

[E -28

U- ]

]

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents (EU-28 n = 137,508, EU-28+2 n = 139,799); weighted results.

Question: “Do you avoid certain places or locations for fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed because

you are [RESPONDENT CATEGORY]?” The results show the sum of respondents who answered ‘Often’ or ‘Always’.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

2�½4�½ The situation of intersex persons

KEY FINDINGS

Almost two thirds (62 %) of intersex respondents felt discriminated against in at least one area of life

because of being intersex in the 12 months before the survey.

62 % of intersex respondents did not provide – and were not asked for – their or their parents’ consent

before undergoing surgical intervention to modify their sex characteristics.

Intersex respondents say that discrimination because of their sex characteristics, bullying and/or violence

are the major problems they face in the country they live in.

One in five intersex respondents (19 %) faced hurdles when registering their civil status or gender in

a public document. These include denials of service or ridicule by staff (41 %).

This section presents findings on the main challenges

intersex respondents face in their daily lives because of

their sex characteristics. It also examines their experi-

ences with being asked, or their parents being asked, to

consent to medical treatments or interventions; how they

found out about the variation of their sex characteristics;

and how this was medically established. In addition, it

looks at obstacles intersex respondents face when reg-

istering their civil status or gender in public documents.

Note on definitions: intersex

FRA uses the term ‘intersex’ as an umbrella term

for a number of different variations in a person’s

bodily characteristics that do not match strict

medical definitions of male or female. These

characteristics may be chromosomal, hormo-

nal and/or anatomical and may be present to

differing degrees. Many variants of sex char-

acteristics are immediately detected at birth, or

even before. Sometimes these variants become

evident only at later stages in life, often during

puberty.

The Council of the EU’s 2013 guidelines for the

protection of the human rights for LGBTI people

noted, in regard to ‘intersex’, that this covers

“bodily variations in regard to culturally estab-

lished standards of maleness and femaleness”.*

* Council of the European Union (2013),

Guidelines to

promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights

by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex

(LGBTI) persons,

Luxembourg, 24 June 2013.

For more information, please see

FRA (2015),

The fundamental rights situation of intersex

people,

Luxembourg, Publications Office.

Providing unique data on intersex

people

The evidence presented in this section is based

on survey data collected for the first time in the

EU on intersex people. It is particularly valuable

for law- and policymakers. In the absence of

comparable EU level data on medical treatment

or surgery performed on intersex children, these

findings provide unique and valuable information

on how intersex people themselves experience

the respect of their human rights to physical and

psychological integrity.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

“I am proud to be intersex. It is a matter of time until

everyone has heard of it and until everyone understands

that biological sex is not binary. It will take longer for

people to accept that everyone is free to choose how they

identify, because this requires people to examine their

own identity.”

(Sweden, Intersex person, Bisexual, 35)

Malta takes the lead

In 2015, Malta became the first EU Member

State to provide protection against discrimina-

tion explicitly on grounds of ‘sex characteristics’.

The ‘Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex

Characteristics Act’ requires public services to

eliminate any unlawful discrimination and har-

assment on the ground of sex characteristics,

and requires public services to promote equality

of opportunity for all, irrespective of their sex

characteristics.****

European Parliament Resolution B8-0101/2019 – on the

rights of intersex people

(2018/2878(RSP)).

** European Intersex Meeting (2014), Statement of the

European Intersex Meeting, 8 October 2014, point 2.

*** European network of legal experts in gender equal-

ity and non-discrimination (2018),

Trans and intersex

equality rights in Europe – a comparative analysis.

**** Malta,

ACT No. XI of 2015

for the recognition and

registration of the gender of a person and to regulate the

effects of such a change, as well as the recognition and

protection of the sex characteristics of a person.

Towards a legal framework for pro-

tecting intersex people?

The traditional social distinction between male

or female does not account for all variations in

sex characteristics. As a result, intersex people

experience fundamental rights violations rang-

ing from discrimination to medical interventions

without their consent.

Important but limited step: depathologisation

In June 2018, the World Health Organisation

(WHO) partially de-pathologised trans identities

by removing them from ‘disorders of sex devel-

opment’ in the 11

revision of the International

Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The European

Parliament welcomed this depathologisation in its

February 2019 resolution on the rights of inter-

sex people, however partial. It also noted though

that “the category of ‘gender incongruence’ in

childhood pathologises non-gender-normative

behaviours in childhood”, and called on Member

States to pursue the removal of this category

from the ICD-11.*

Little engagement at EU and Member State levels

Discrimination against intersex persons is a par-

ticularly complex form of discrimination. Intersex

organisations argue that the term ‘sex charac-

teristics’ would best define a ground for protec-

tion against discrimination of intersex people.**

However, it remains unclear how the anti-dis-

crimination legal framework in the EU protects

intersex people.

The Commission’s 2018 report on ‘Trans and

intersex equality rights in Europe’ finds “a

broader problem of domestic (and EU) law fail-

ing to engage with intersex experiences”.*** The

report argues that intersex individuals “enjoy few

explicit protections against unequal treatment”,

while Member States “largely fail to counteract

the practice of unnecessary medical interventions

on the bodies of intersex people”.

EU gender equality legislation is silent on the

issue and no case of discrimination against inter-

sex people has yet reached the CJEU.

2�½4�½1�½ Main challenges faced by

intersex persons

More than one in three intersex respondents (34 %)

consider as their biggest problem discrimination

because of their sex characteristics. A similar propor-

tion (33 %) considers bullying and/or violence as their

biggest problem.

A slightly smaller proportion (29 %) says the main

problem is that people see intersex as a disease or

as pathological. More than one in four (26 %) identify

psychological problems or isolation from others as the

biggest concern. One in five (19 %) indicated sex -‘nor-

malising’ surgery performed on infants or children as

the main issue.

“My last physical attack was a grope and punch to the

chest at a tram stop after works’ Christmas Party.”

(United Kingdom, Trans woman, Intersex person,

Bisexual, 49)

“Medical care for my health needs is hard to find without

discrimination. Therefore, I go to the doctor only in ex-

treme emergencies.”

(Germany, Intersex person, 49)

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 22: Biggest problems intersex people face in the country they live in

Discrimination because of

my sex characteristics

Bullying and/or violence

Intersex seen as pathological

or as a disease

Psychological problems

or isolation from others

Sex-‘normalising’ surgery performed

on infants or children

Legal gender recognition-changing

gender/sex marker in documents

Forming relationships or a family

Medical interventions without

informed consent

No access to appropriate medical

treatment or medication

Sex-‘normalising’ and gender conﬁrmation

surgeries are required to access rights

Other

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all intersex respondents living in the EU (n=1,519); weighted results.

The presented figure is based on question IX9: “Which do you think are the biggest problems intersex people

face in [COUNTRY]? Please select up to three options that are the most important for you.”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

2�½4�½2�½ Informed consent for medical

treatments or interventions

Most intersex respondents (62 %) say they did not

provide – and were not asked for – their own or their

parents’ informed consent before their first surgical

treatment to modify their sex characteristics. Almost

half of the intersex respondents say that informed con-

sent was not provided for hormonal treatment (49 %),

nor for any other type of medical treatment (47 %).

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

A matter of rights: informed

consent, dignity and integrity of

the person

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines

the right to integrity, and stresses that the free

and informed consent of the person must be

respected (Article 3 – Title I ‘Dignity’).

The right to make informed decisions about care

and treatment options, and the right to refuse

treatment, are basic patient rights. They ensure

the ethical treatment of persons receiving medi-

cal or other professional health care services and

the respect of their dignity and bodily autonomy.

The absence of informed consent about any medi-

cal intervention, let alone important interventions

that modify the sex characteristics of a person

can violate patients’ rights, as well as the right

to human dignity and the integrity of the person.

The Council of Europe Convention on Human

Rights and Biomedicine,* better known as the

Oviedo Convention, outlines a range of principles

and prohibitions concerning the right to consent,

to private life and information, etc. for the pro-

tection of human rights in the biomedical field.

However, a number of Member States have not

signed and/or ratified the convention. These

include Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy,

Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and

Sweden.

A matter of national law

In 2018, the European Commission issued a report

on “Patients’ Rights in the European Union”. It

refers to EU efforts dating from 1984 to estab-

lish the rights of patients – for instance, through

a European Parliament resolution inviting the

Commission to propose a “European Charter on

the Rights of Patients”.**

The report notes that Directive 2011/24/EU on

the application of patients’ rights in cross-border

healthcare addresses patients’ rights as ‘consum-

ers’ in the context of cross-border health care. But

it notes that the directive does not deal with other

core aspects of basic individual patients’ rights.

This includes, for instance, the issue of informed

consent. This is regulated at national level, with

Member States providing varying degrees of

protection.

See Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Appli-

cation of Biology and Medicine:

Convention on Human

Rights and Biomedicine.

The Commission’s report is available on the

website

of the EU’s Publications Office.

Figure 23: Intersex respondents who say neither they nor their parents gave fully informed consent

before first medical treatment or intervention to modify their sex characteristics

a,b

Intersex respondents

with surgical treatment

Intersex respondents

with hormonal treatment

Intersex respondents

with other treatment

Notes:

Out of all intersex respondents who have undergone any medical treatment or intervention, to modify their sex

characteristics (n=362); weighted results.

The presented figure shows respondents who replied to Question IX4: “Have you undergone any medical treat-

ment or intervention, to modify your sex characteristics?” and Question IX5: “Who gave consent before your

first medical treatment or intervention to modify your sex characteristics?” and replied ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to Question

IX7: ”Were you or your parents explained in detail what the medical treatment involves and possible positive or

negative consequences?”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

What do the results show?

Figure 24: How the variation in the intersex respondents’ sex characteristics was determined

A speciﬁc diagnosis and clear

information was provided

Yes, but I did not get a speciﬁc

diagnosis and clear information

No, I realised I have a variation

of sex characteristics myself

No, but other people

told me about it

DK/Prefer not to say

Determination of variation of sexual anatomy / reproductive organs

Determination of variation of chromosomes / hormonal patterns

Determination of variation of secondary characteristics

Determination of other variation of sex characteristics

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all intersex respondents (n EU-28=1,519); weighted results.

The presented figure is based on Question IX1: “What type of variation of your sex characteristics do you have

(or were you treated for)? Read all options and select all that apply” and Question IX2: “Was the variation in your

sex characteristics determined by medical professionals?”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

2�½4�½3�½ Determination and awareness of

sex characteristics

The survey asked intersex respondents how they found

out about the variation of their sex characteristics. More

than four in 10 (43 %) say that they discovered them-

selves a variation of their secondary sex characteristics.

One in three respondents (34 %) received a specific

medical diagnosis and clear information concerning the

variation of chromosomes or hormonal patterns. About

one third of respondents say that a medical determi-

nation was made, but that they did not get a specific

diagnosis or clear information about this.

A smaller proportion of respondents – about one in 10 –

say there was no medical determination of them being

intersex. Instead, other people told them about this.

2�½4�½4�½ Obstacles to registering civil

status in public documents

One in five intersex survey respondents (19 %) faced

obstacles when registering their civil status or gender in

a public document. These include bureaucratic obstacles

(58%), denials of service or ridicule by staff (41 %), and

violations of privacy (44 %).

“Legal discrimination between the sexes allows for legal

inequalities. It is not a question of increasing the number

of legal genders, but of creating a legal system that what

you are assigned at birth will not matter.”

(Hungary, Non

binary, 44)

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Figure 25: Obstacles faced by intersex respondents when registering civil status or gender in public

documents

I was denied service or ridiculed and/or

harassed by ofﬁcials or staff

I faced bureaucratic obstacles – e.g. excessive

documents or medical certiﬁcates I could not

provide or fees were requested

My privacy was violated – my personal or

sensitive data were exposed or not protected

Other obstacles

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all intersex respondents who said they have faced obstacles registering their civil status or gender in pub-

lic documents (n EU-28=306); weighted results.

The presented figure is based on Question IX8: “Have you ever faced any obstacles registering your civil sta-

tus or your gender in public documents?” and Question IX9: “What kind of obstacles have you faced? Read all

options and select all that apply”.

Source: FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Annex: Methodology

The EU-LGBTI II Survey was conducted online between 27 May and 22 July 2019. It collected information from 139,799

LGBTI respondents. Intersex people and those aged 15 to 17 were included for the first time in this survey wave. The

preparation of the survey, online data collection, processing and analysis of indicators, and the online survey promotion

were conducted by Agilis SA and Homoevolution

under FRA’s guidance and oversight.

Geographical coverage

Respondents could fill in the survey only if they reported that they had lived for at least one year in the countries

covered by the survey. These countries were all EU countries, North Macedonia and Serbia. The latter two were not

included in the first wave of the survey in 2012.

Sample

The EU-LGBTI II Survey, conducted online, collected data from 139,799 complete responses, including 137,508 from

respondents living in the 28 EU Member States. The EU-28 sample is composed of 42 % gay males, 20 % bisexual

women, 16 % lesbian women, 14 % trans persons, 7 % bisexual males and 1 % intersex persons. In Estonia and

Lithuania, bisexual women form the largest categories. In Finland, trans respondents do so.

16 As consortium of external contractors awarded the LGBTI survey contract through an Open Call for Tender in 2018.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Table 3:

Country

EU-28

Unweighted sample size by country and by LGBTI group and the distribution of the national samples between LGBTI groups

Sample size (unweighted)

Lesbian

women

22,380

457

460

220

159

420

413

206

907

2,583

3,059

621

716

460

1,853

119

188

189

459

Gay men

57,866

1,122

1,394

995

496

359

2,004

1,025

234

751

6,286

7,580

2,083

1,563

972

4,789

251

391

187

342

2,128

Bisexual

women

26,815

264

250

303

214

493

256

446

1,274

1,765

1,433

909

1,045

431

1,481

203

538

134

359

Bisexual

men

9,483

123

133

240

242

157

175

764

1,072

365

206

194

627

287

Trans

19,445

326

416

118

108

366

374

187

1,575

1,934

2,815

448

486

305

890

105

156

620

Intersex

1,519

<20

160

141

<20

Total

137,508

2,315

2,686

1,894

1,088

630

3,562

2,244

1,139

4,711

13,418

16,119

4,502

4,059

2,383

9,781

743

1,398

361

800

3,914

Lesbian

women

16%

20%

17%

12%

15%

13%

12%

18%

19%

14%

18%

19%

16%

13%

22%

24%

12%

Gay

men

42%

48%

52%

53%

46%

57%

56%

46%

21%

16%

47%

46%

39%

41%

49%

34%

28%

52%

43%

54%

% of country sample (unweighted)

Bisexual

women

20%

11%

16%

20%

13%

14%

11%

39%

27%

13%

20%

26%

18%

15%

27%

38%

11%

17%

Bisexual

men

13%

Trans

14%

15%

10%

17%

16%

33%

14%

17%

10%

12%

13%

14%

11%

10%

11%

16%

Intersex

hidden

Total

100%

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Sample size (unweighted)

Country

Total

Notes:

% of country sample (unweighted)

Intersex

175

<20

114

<20

121

1,587

Total

13,718

4,294

3,214

2,955

633

20,180

2,502

600

1,691

12,265

139,799

Lesbian

women

15%

16%

14%

15%

12%

13%

14%

20%

16%

Gay

men

39%

60%

33%

45%

54%

36%

40%

42%

47%

32%

42%

Bisexual

women

26%

10%

27%

24%

16%

32%

12%

20%

17%

20%

19%

Bisexual

men

11%

12%

Trans

13%

12%

10%

25%

10%

21%

14%

Intersex

hidden

Total

100%

Lesbian

women

2,065

380

521

428

2,458

328

241

2,453

22,707

Gay men

5,335

2,555

1,065

1,344

340

7,339

998

254

788

3,938

58,908

Bisexual

women

3,606

444

878

713

101

6,406

294

120

282

2,453

27,217

Bisexual

men

795

482

298

179

1,796

226

158

693

9,711

Trans

1,742

360

372

219

2,067

632

171

2,607

19,669

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 139,799); unweighted results.

To avoid possible identification of respondents, the frequencies and proportions are not published if the sample size in a given cell is smaller than 20.

Based on questions A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A6.

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

Annex: Methodology

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

The survey screened respondents with regards to sex (questions A2 and A3), sex characteristics (question A5), sexual

orientation (question A4), and gender identity and expression (questions A3, A6 and A6_1). Based on their answers,

respondents were categorised into six main categories – lesbian woman, gay man, bisexual woman, bisexual man,

trans and intersex.

Some respondents could be categorised under more than one category (for example, bisexual and trans). In this case,

the trans or intersex category was given priority to collect more information on trans and intersex people, who are often

under-represented in surveys on LGBTI issues. Therefore, respondents who belong to more than one LGBTI category

were asked questions only with regard to one of the respondent categories with which they identify. For example,

trans lesbians were asked questions about their experiences as trans persons. This was important to limit the number

of questions and to ease the burden on respondents. However, the respondents were able to attribute more than one

ground – for example, being a lesbian or a woman – to a specific incident they had experienced. Respondents who

self-identified as trans were allowed to specify a description that best fits their identity, such as trans woman, trans

man, cross-dressing woman, cross-dressing man, non-binary, genderqueer, gender-fluid, agender or poly-gender.

Table 4:

Self-reported trans identities, unweighted (EU-28, %)

Description

Don’t know

Prefer not to say

Not applicable

A trans woman

A trans man

A cross-dressing woman

A cross-dressing man

Non-binary

Genderqueer

Gender-fluid

Agender

Poly-gender

Other, please specify

Total

Notes:

Trans

(0%)

15%

23%

11%

100%

Intersex

(0%)

55%

100%

Total

% (excl.

Not applicable)

(0%)

14%

22%

11%

100%

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all trans and intersex respondents who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 20,964);

unweighted results.

The column ‘Total’ excludes respondents who didn’t provide their description.

Intersex category is included in the table because some intersex respondents also identified as trans. All lesbian, gay

and bisexual respondents who identified as trans (or intersex) were categorised as trans (or intersex).

Based on question A6_1: “How would you describe your current gender identity? Please select which of the follow-

ing categories fits you the best: 1. A trans woman, 2. A trans man, 3. A cross-dressing woman, 4. A cross-dressing

man, 5. Non-binary, 6. Genderqueer, 7. Gender-fluid, 8. Agender, 9. Poly-gender, 10. Other, please specify, 888. Pre-

fer not to say, 999. Don’t know”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

The countries with the largest samples are Spain (14 % of all respondents), Germany (12 %), Poland and France (both

10 %), and the United Kingdom (9 %). By contrast, Cyprus, Luxembourg, North Macedonia and Slovenia have the

smallest samples (each less than 0.5 % of all respondents).

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Annex: Methodology

Survey type

An open online survey method was selected due to the specific challenges that apply to surveying LGBTI people with

traditional methods, such as ‘random route’. The anonymity and confidentiality ensured by this type of survey allows

large numbers of respondents from different strata of the target population to participate, including those who do

not wish to disclose being LGBTI in a traditional survey conducted face-to-face or by telephone.

To ensure high rates of participation, European and many national LGBTI organisations helped promote the survey.

Moreover, various other channels were used to inform people about the survey and promote participation. These

include social media and other on- and offline channels.

The questionnaire

The questionnaire largely duplicated the one used in the previous wave, improved and extended after consultation

with EU and international institutions and human rights bodies and organisations, as well as with European and global

LGBTI organisations and networks, experts and academics.

It included mostly multiple-choice questions, as well as a number of controls to ensure quality. Respondents had to

select an answer for all questions, including for some the option of ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’.

The wording of the questionnaire was adapted to the respondents’ category. For example, intersex respondents

were asked about their experiences as intersex rather than as ‘LGBTI person’. One section of the questionnaire was

dedicated to trans respondents and one section to intersex respondents.

The questionnaire included, at the end, an open text field for comments.

Representativeness

Open online surveys do not claim to be representative of the universe they cover. FRA took a number of steps to

ensure that the survey is ‘as representative as possible’: for example, through mapping the LGBTI population in each

country to calculate target sample sizes per country, by LGBTI group, and by age category.

Data quality and consistency

The dataset was checked for internal consistency and controlled for genuine answers. The controls included checks

for ‘speeders’ (those who completed the survey too fast, meaning that they replied to questions without taking

the minimum time necessary to read them), internally inconsistent answers, answers that were aimed to distort

the results, etc. The responses were assigned a combined quality score and were deleted if they failed to meet the

data quality standards. In total, FRA excluded 1,822 (1.3 %) responses. Therefore, the analysis of the survey results

presented in this report was based on the final sample of 139,799 questionnaires – out of the 141,621 questionnaires

collected via the online survey tool.

Weighting

To avoid distortion of the survey results due to over- or underrepresentation of a particular group in the sample, two

sets of weights were applied:

Benchmark weight based on information on assumed LGBTI population from previous surveys. This weight took

into account the relative distributions between the LGBTI groups and age categories per country to correct for

underrepresentation of some LGBTI and age groups.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Affiliation weight, which takes into account the relative propensity of respondents of being a certain or possible

participant in other LGBTI surveys, including the FRA 2012 survey. This weight corrects for the higher propensity

of people closely affiliated with LGBTI organisations to participate in LGBTI surveys.

The weights were standardised and trimmed to avoid extreme values. The results of the second wave of the survey

are weighed by a combination of benchmark and affiliation weights. When calculating averages for the EU-28, the

relative population size of the countries was taken into account.

Since the first wave of the survey did not collect information that would allow the calculation of the affiliation weights,

comparisons between the first and the second wave are weighed only through benchmark weights.

Sociodemographic characteristics

The sample in the EU-28 is predominantly young, with a mean age of almost 29 years. Four out of five respondents

(82 %) were younger than 40. More than a third were aged between 18 and 24. Respondents aged 15 to 17 years

constitute a seventh of the sample. Only 4 % of respondents were 55 or older.

Table 5:

Age of survey respondents, by LGBTI group, unweighted (EU-28, %)

Age

15–17 years old

18–24 years old

25–39 years old

40–54 years old

55+ years old

Total

Notes:

Lesbian

women

100

Gay men

100

Bisexual

women

100

Bisexual

men

100

Trans

100

Intersex

100

Total

100

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in the EU-28 who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 137,508);

unweighted results.

Based on question A1: “How old are you?”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

In terms of education, almost half of the sample (45 %) had completed university education (equivalent of bachelor

degree or higher); 12 % had completed post-secondary education; 28 % completed upper secondary, and 11 % lower

secondary education. Only 4 % of the sample had completed only primary education or had no formal education. By

comparison, 29 % of the general population in the EU-28 have completed tertiary education, 46 % have completed

upper secondary and post-secondary education, and 26 % have completed less than primary or lower secondary

education.

17 According to Eurostat: Population by educational attainment level (2018). Available on Eurostat’s website.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Annex: Methodology

Table 6:

Highest completed level of education of the survey respondents, by LGBTI group, unweighted

(EU-28, %)

Education

Lesbian

women

10%

27%

11%

25%

21%

100%

Gay

men

24%

12%

25%

100%

Bisexual

women

15%

32%

12%

21%

12%

100%

Bisexual

men

11%

30%

14%

22%

16%

100%

Trans

15%

34%

12%

20%

11%

100%

Intersex

18%

29%

13%

16%

12%

100%

Total

11%

28%

12%

23%

19%

100%

No formal

Primary

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Post-secondary other

than college/university

Bachelor or equivalent

Master or equivalent

Doctoral or equivalent

Total

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in the EU-28 who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 137,508);

unweighted results.

Based on question H1: “What is the highest level of education you have completed? 1. No formal education, 2. Pri-

mary education, 3. Lower secondary education, 4. Upper secondary education, 5. Post-secondary education other

than college/university, 6. Bachelor or equivalent, 7. Master or equivalent, 8. Doctoral or equivalent”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

About a third (37 %) of the respondents in the EU indicated that their households have difficulties to make ends meet.

This was most often the case for intersex (52 %) and trans (46 %) respondents.

Table 7:

Self-reported household’s difficulty to make ends meet, by LGBTI group, unweighted (EU-28, %)

Lesbian

women

(0%)

24%

31%

24%

100%

Gay

men

21%

28%

25%

14%

100%

Bisexual

women

26%

29%

24%

100%

Bisexual

men

(0%)

25%

28%

23%

12%

100%

Trans

12%

27%

28%

18%

100%

Intersex

(0%)

12%

13%

26%

24%

16%

100%

Total

24%

29%

24%

11%

100%

Household makes

ends meet...

Don’t know

Prefer not to say

With great difficulty

With difficulty

With some difficulty

Fairly easily

Easily

Very easily

Total

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in the EU-28 who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 137,508);

unweighted results.

Based on question H20: “Thinking of your household’s total income, is your household able to make ends meet? 1.

With great difficulty, 2. With difficulty, 3. With some difficulty, 4. Fairly easily, 5. Easily, 6. Very easily, 888. Prefer not

to say, 999. Don’t know”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

A long way to go for LGBTI equality

Four out of 10 respondents (41 %) in the EU were in paid work when they completed the survey and 40 % were in

education. Around 5 % of the respondents were unemployed.

Table 8:

Economic activity status, by LGBTI group, unweighted (EU-28, %)

Current status

Don’t know

Prefer not to say

In paid work (including

on paternity or other

temporary leave)

Self-employed

In unpaid or voluntary work

Unemployed

Student or pupil

Retired

Unable to work due to long-

standing health problems

Fulfilling domestic tasks

Compulsory military

or civilian service

Other

Total

Notes:

Lesbian

women

(0%)

46%

Gay

men

(0%)

54%

Bisexual

women

(0%)

23%

Bisexual

men

(0%)

38%

Trans

(0%)

27%

Intersex

(0%)

32%

Total

(0%)

41%

37%

100%

26%

100%

65%

100%

44%

100%

48%

100%

10%

33%

(1%)

100%

40%

100%

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in the EU-28 who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 137,508);

unweighted results.

Based on question H2: “Which of the following best describes your status? 1. In paid work (including on paternity

or other temporary leave), 2. Self-employed, 3. In unpaid or voluntary work, 4. Unemployed, 5. Student, pupil, 6.

Retired, 7. Unable to work due to long-standing health problems, 8. Fulfilling domestic tasks, 9. Compulsory military

or civilian service, 10. Other, 888. Prefer not to say, 999. Don’t know”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

Almost half of the respondents (47 %) across all groups in the EU live in a big city, 11 % live in the suburbs or out-

skirts of a big city, 30 % live in a town or small city, and 13 % live in a rural area. By comparison, 42 % of the general

population lives in a city, 31 % in a town or suburbs, and 27 % live in rural areas.

18 According to Eurostat: Indicator – degree of urbanisation (2017). Available on the

Eurostat website.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Annex: Methodology

Table 9:

Place of residence, by LGBTI group, unweighted (EU-28, %)

Lesbian

women

(0%)

45%

11%

31%

11%

100%

Gay

men

(0%)

53%

10%

26%

10%

100%

Bisexual

women

(0%)

39%

12%

36%

12%

100%

Bisexual

men

(0%)

42%

12%

32%

12%

100%

Trans

(0%)

39%

13%

34%

12%

100%

Intersex

(0%)

40%

10%

32%

16%

100%

Total

(0%)

47%

11%

30%

11%

100%

Place of residence

Don’t know

Prefer not to say

A big city

The suburbs or

outskirts of a big city

A town or a small city

A village

A farm or home in

the countryside

Total

Notes:

The EU-28 aggregate includes the United Kingdom (UK) because the reference period of the data collection is from

when the UK was a Member State.

Out of all respondents in the EU-28 who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 137,508);

unweighted results.

Based on question H3: “Where do you currently live? 1. A big city, 2. The suburbs or outskirts of a big city, 3. A town

or a small city, 4. A village, 5. A farm or home in the countryside, 888. Prefer not to say, 999. Don’t know”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

The survey asked respondents whether they consider themselves part of a minority in terms of ethnicity (including

migrant background), religion, disability or other. Most respondents (77 %) in the EU did not consider themselves as

a member of any of the listed minorities, although 8 % indicated that they belong to ‘other minority group’. Those

belonging to minorities related to their ethnicity (or migrant background), religion or disability constitute between

5-7 % of the total sample. The share of trans and intersex respondents who identify as belonging to a minority in

regard to disability is higher than for the other groups.

Table 10: Respondents who consider themselves to belong to a minority, by LGBTI group, unweighted

(EU-28, %)

Respondents consider themselves

as minority in terms of:

Ethnic or migrant background

Religion

Disability

Other

None of the above

Don’t know

Notes:

Lesbian

women

Gay

men

Bisexual Bisexual

women

men

Trans

Intersex

(1)

Total

Out of all respondents in the EU-28 who provided a questionnaire that passed the quality criteria (n = 137,508);

unweighted results.

Based on multiple response question H15: “In the country where you live, do you consider yourself to be part of any

of the following, other than LGBTI? A. An ethnic minority (including of migrant background); B. A religious minor-

ity; C. A minority in terms of disability; D. Other minority group; E. None of the above; F. Don’t know [Shown only if

respondent clicked on ‘next’ button without selecting an option]”

Source:

FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

Getting in touch with the EU

In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct

information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:

https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.

You can contact this service:

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or

– by email via:

https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU

Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU

is available on the Europa website at:

https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications

You can download or order free and priced EU publications at:

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications.

Multiple copies of free publications

may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre

(see

https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).

EU law and related documents

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the

official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets

from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and

non-commercial purposes.

LIU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 77: EU LGBTI Survey II samt link til ILGA Europes Rainbow Map 2020, fra ministeren for fødevarer, fiskeri og ligestilling

doi:10.2811/17374 TK-02-20-297-EN-C

HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

This report presents select findings from FRA’s 2019 survey on LGBTI people in the EU and North Macedonia and Serbia. With

almost 140,000 participants, it is the largest survey of its kind. It follows the agency’s first survey on LGBT people in the EU,

conducted in 2012. The new survey results show little progress over the past seven years.

Discrimination in everyday life persists – at work and at school; at cafés, restaurants, bars and nightclubs; when looking for

housing; when accessing healthcare or social services; and in shops. Harassment and physical and sexual attacks also remain

concerns. Trans and intersex people especially face challenges, including when having to show identification documents.

For LGBTI people aged 15 to 17, the situation is mixed. While the young encounter more harassment than their older peers,

they also see more individuals standing up for LGBTI people at school.

The results also show that LGBTI people across the EU – and beyond – believe that law and policy, as well as behaviour by

politicians, public figures, community leaders and civil society, greatly affect their lives. By presenting key findings from its

second survey, FRA aims to encourage policy- and decision-makers to step up their efforts to promote full respect for the

rights of LGBTI people.

LGBTI people

Equality

Non-discrimination

Hate crime

FRA - EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria

Tel. +43 1580 30-0 – Fax +43 1580 30-699

fra.europa.eu

facebook.com/fundamentalrights

linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency

twitter.com/EURightsAgency

ISBN 978-92-9474-967-3