Intersectionality Issues in Human Trafficking
January 2026 GLC Monthly Learning Call Brief
What is intersectionality and why it matters to the movement.
Summary of the calls
To kickstart our learning for 2026, GLC members Sophie Otiende and Ethan Levine invited the GLC community into a deep and honest conversation on intersectionality and its relevance to anti-trafficking work. Intersectionality might be a term that is new to some of us, while others many of us are familiar with, what the calls made clear however is that even if familiar it is often misunderstood and, as a result, underutilised or misapplied in practice.
Rather than introducing intersectionality as a new concept, the focus was on reframing how we understand vulnerability, exclusion, and survivor experience. The conversations consistently moved away from identity-based explanations and toward an examination of systems — legal, social, economic, political, and institutional — and how these interact to produce layered forms of harm and invisibility.
What We Learned and Discussed
A central point of learning was that intersectionality is not about adding identities together, but about examining how power and structure shape lived experience. Sophie spoke candidly about her frustration with how intersectionality is often reduced to a checklist — race, gender, sexuality — while the systems producing exclusion remain intact. Ethan reinforced this, explaining that intersectionality emerged precisely because existing legal and social frameworks failed to recognise compounded harms, leaving many people without protection or redress.
The framework was grounded in its historical roots within Black feminist thought. Ethan traced the concept to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s legal work in the late 1980s, particularly cases where Black women experienced discrimination that could not be recognised as either race-based or gender-based alone. Ethan and Sophie further emphasized that intersectional thinking long predates the term itself, with earlier contributions from the Combahee River Collective, Audre Lorde, and other Black feminist activists. Sophie emphasised the importance of citation and accountability, cautioning against the sector adopting intersectionality in name while erasing its origins and political intent.
The learning became especially concrete through the case studies they highlighted. Sophie described experiences supporting queer trafficking survivors who were unable to access either LGBTQ services or anti-trafficking programmes due to funding restrictions, institutional bias, or rigid service criteria. In these cases, exclusion was not the result of a lack of need, but of systems designed with narrow assumptions about who qualifies for support.
Participants resonated strongly with these examples, sharing similar experiences of survivors falling through gaps — including men and boys, LGBTQ survivors, people with disabilities, migrants, and those criminalised through their exploitation. A recurring theme in the discussion was that many organisations describe themselves as serving “everyone,” yet in practice operate with unspoken boundaries shaped by donor frameworks, legal definitions, and social norms.
A further area that was explored was the sector’s reliance on simplified narratives. Sophie challenged the tendency to frame trafficking in clear binaries — victim and perpetrator, coercion and choice — noting that such narratives may be easier to communicate but often fail to reflect lived realities. Survivors may move between roles, engage in survival strategies, or be criminalised in ways that existing frameworks struggle to hold. Ethan added that systems often prioritise credibility and conformity to the idea of a “perfect victim,” further marginalising those whose experiences are more complex.
Alongside critique, the presentations also highlighted helpful examples of organisations (Our Sister’s House and Afrinalia) and approaches that have emerged precisely because mainstream systems failed. Survivor-led, community-based, and culturally specific initiatives were discussed as practical demonstrations of intersectionality in action — bridging gaps between movements such as anti-trafficking, anti-violence, LGBTQ justice, migrant rights, and racial justice.
Implications for the GLC
The discussions surfaced a clear and consistent message: exclusion in the anti-trafficking sector is often not accidental, but the predictable outcome of narrowly framed policies, funding structures, and service models. Addressing this does not simply require adding new categories or populations, but rethinking how programmes are designed, how eligibility is defined, and how success is measured.
For organisations, this means paying closer attention to who is not being reached and why, and being willing to adapt services based on lived experience rather than rigid definitions. For funders and donor-facing actors, it raises questions about how earmarking and reporting requirements may unintentionally reinforce exclusion, and how greater flexibility could enable more responsive support. At a sector-wide level, the learning points toward the value of deeper collaboration across movements, shared learning spaces, and prevention strategies that address structural drivers such as criminalisation, economic inequality, and social stigma.
Applying intersectionality with integrity requires a willingness to sit with complexity and resist simplified narratives. As these conversations demonstrated, intersectionality is not an abstract theory, but a practical lens that can help ensure fewer survivors are rendered invisible by the systems intended to support them.
What’s Next for the GLC
There was a strong interest in continuing to explore how intersectionality can be applied more concretely across prevention, protection, policy, and funding practice, and Sophie and Ethan suggested they would love to facilitate a follow-up Community Led Call. The idea will be to have a space for further discussion and importantly be for conversation how intersectional analysis can be valuable in informing various aspects of our work, including prevention strategies, data collection, donor engagement, and cross-movement collaboration, as well as how survivor expertise — particularly from those at the margins — can be more meaningfully centred.
As always, we encourage our members to connect with the Secretariat or with one another to continue these conversations, share experiences, and shape future learning opportunities. The richness of these discussions reflects the collective knowledge within the community, and the GLC remains committed to holding space for reflection, challenge, and shared growth as the sector continues to grapple with complexity.
Sophie and Ethan are happy to speak with any members, please feel free to reach out to the Secretariat team to be put in touch team@globallearning.community
Resource shared
Ethan shared a great article to support further self-directed exploration of the topic: Gender Data, Intersectionality, and a Feminist Politics of “Negotiated Refusal”