Abstract Search Find and explore abstracts from the RSS Annual Meeting

Gender and Sexualities

Should “Basic Needs” Erase Queer Lives? Reframing Rural LGBTQ Safety as Survival in Post-DEI Funding Willow Sipling*, Willow Sipling,

After the Trump administration’s 2024-and-following turn against diversity, equity, and inclusion, federal and state support for social‑justice‑oriented work in rural communities has rapidly contracted, pushing already-precarious organizations into a crowded scramble for already-stretched foundation and private grants.

In the wake of these cuts, many funders have refocused their priorities around an ostensibly apolitical rubric of “basic needs,” defined as food, shelter, and clothing. This theoretical paper argues that, like many so-called “neutral” systems and social services, this narrowed framing is a form of neoliberal gatekeeping that systematically disqualifies rural LGBTQ violence prevention and safety work from counting as “need” at all. Drawing on intersectional scholarship that demonstrates how ostensibly ‘neutral’ or ‘universal’ policies reproduce existing hierarchies — particularly when decision‑makers ignore how race, class, gender, and sexuality co-constitute vulnerability — this paper shows how “basic needs” framings routinely sideline those with intersecting marginalizations, and intersecting needs.

This paper theorizes how “basic needs” frameworks are themselves saturated with heteronormative and urban-centric assumptions. In rural regions of the U.S. Midwest, for example, LGBTQ people often access food, housing, employment, and schooling only through institutions (families, churches, schools, clinics) that are also primary sites of anti-queer regulation, surveillance, and conversion efforts. Safety from harassment, outing, forced religious “care,” and policy-enabled exclusion is therefore a precondition for accessing the very goods funders claim to prioritize.

Building on public policy and legislative governance scholarship, the paper then reframes LGBTQ safety as a basic need by showing how ‘neutral’ grant criteria quietly diverge from the spirit of equal protection and public-accommodations norms, effectively outsourcing state responsibility for foreseeable harms onto underfunded rural nonprofits. The conclusion sketches implications for measurement, grantmaking, and advocacy, proposing a rural justice framework in which LGBTQ safety is not an optional “add‑on” after food and shelter, but constitutive of what it means to have basic needs met in rural life.