2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(1) the established global nature of both statelessness and SOGIESC-based discrimination as respective problems. 107 Furthermore, this nexus is one that is both intersectional through the everyday experiences of affected individuals and causal in cases where discrimination on SOGIESC grounds can render LGBTIQ+ persons or their children stateless. The particular causes and risk factors of statelessness for LGBTIQ+ persons range from arbitrary deprivation of citizenship based on SOGIESC discrimination grounds to legal frameworks that do not account for LGBTIQ+ subjectivities and relationships (another form of discrimination). The global patchwork from recognition to non-recognition of LGBTIQ+ identities, statuses and relationships, and the prevalence of legislation that is not sensitive to such lived realities, also presents many grey areas that further complicate the process of considering certain LGBTIQ+ individuals or their children as citizens of the state in question. This may occur particularly in situations where multiple legal systems are involved (eg when sex/gender transition or surrogacy take place in another country). This article has compiled and reviewed existing academic, media and advocacy references relevant to SOGIESC and statelessness, including in cases where the narrative was not (explicitly) framed within these terms. Based on surveying this literature and examining a number of individual case studies, it has established a series of contexts and circumstances in which statelessness may occur in relation to SOGIESC. Given the broad exploratory nature of the research presented within this article — focused on a complex legal issue with a global scope — there is clearly a need for more focused research attention in this area. It is hoped that the results of the scoping research conducted for this article can provide a preliminary basis for more detailed examination of the SOGIESC–statelessness nexus in specific contexts. Mapping of the issue on country and regional levels would certainly provide additional valuable insight into understanding the local nuances important to social, legal and political discourses on the issue. Further research as well as advocacy work bridging the interdisciplinary gaps around statelessness for LGBTIQ+ persons could result in effective coalitions to ensure the place of the SOGIESC–statelessness nexus within the agenda of future work on both LGBTIQ+ and statelessness issues. 107 On Statelessness, see UNHCR’s Global Campaign to End Statelessness by 2024: ‘#IBelong Campaign to End Statelessness’, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Web Page) <https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/ibelong-campaign-to-end-statelessness.html>. See also Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, The World’s Stateless (Wolf Legal 2014). On highlighting discrimination on SOGIESC grounds as a global issue, see the work of International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. Additionally, see Information Paper on Protection against Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression and Sexual Characteristics (SOGIESC) Discrimination (Report, International Labour Organisation 2017) 2. 85