We’re thrilled to introduce Nadira Masiumova, a human rights activist, anti-discrimination advocate, and member of our Resource Distribution Committee (formerly known as PDMC) based in Kyrgyzstan.
With six years of experience in grassroots feminist and queer organizing, Nadira is deeply engaged in feminist, gender, and racial justice movements across Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central and North Asia (CEECCNA).
As a member of the Dalan Fund’s committee on participatory resource distribution, she plays a key role in ensuring that the needs, priorities, and leadership of historically excluded communities from Central Asia are heard and meaningfully integrated into the Fund’s resource distribution practices. Nadira helps us shape funding approaches that are responsive, equitable, and rooted in the realities of intersectional movements organizing by and for these communities.
“One of the fundamental challenges with HIV funding is its emphasis on service provision rather than holistic, community-led approaches. Ensuring the right to health for people living with HIV requires an intersectional approach that prioritizes access to justice, decriminalization, and the elimination of stigma — both in healthcare and society. When funding acknowledges the complexity of people’s lived realities, it fosters safer, more inclusive spaces where individuals can seek support without fear of discrimination or exclusion.”
— Nadira Masiumova
Nadira, your work includes advocacy for the right to health, particularly in the context of HIV. What are the biggest challenges in ensuring that HIV-related funding in Central Asia is feminist, intersectional, and community-led? How can funders better support movements working at the intersection of health justice, gender, and LGBTQIA+ rights in Central Asia?
One of the fundamental challenges with HIV funding is its emphasis on service provision rather than holistic, community-led approaches. In Kyrgyzstan, for example, when community-based organizations raise concerns about inadequate salaries or unrealistic performance targets, donor institutions often shift their partnerships to organizations that do not directly represent HIV-affected communities. Some of these entities even perpetuate stigma and discrimination, making them ill-equipped to provide meaningful peer-to-peer support. This dynamic not only undermines the leadership of those most affected but also reinforces harmful power imbalances in the HIV response.
Ensuring the right to health for people living with HIV requires an intersectional approach that prioritizes access to justice, decriminalization, and the elimination of stigma — both in healthcare and society. However, HIV funding rarely prioritizes legal issues, and advocacy groups often restrict their efforts to service delivery. This narrow focus overlooks the structural barriers that shape healthcare access, leaving critical needs unaddressed.
A truly intersectional response to HIV recognizes that different communities and individuals — such as trans women, gay and bisexual men — experience distinct challenges and require tailored approaches. When funding acknowledges the complexity of people’s lived realities, it fosters safer, more inclusive spaces where individuals can seek support without fear of discrimination or exclusion.
Funders committed to social justice must go beyond biomedical interventions and invest in the broader human rights infrastructure that shapes health and well-being. For example, access to quality hormone therapy for trans people and comprehensive guidance on integrating it with antiretroviral treatment is not only a matter of medical necessity but also one of dignity, autonomy, and self-determination. Addressing these intersecting needs strengthens the resilience of HIV-affected communities and centers leadership of those leading the fight for health justice.
Central Asian feminist movements are often overlooked in global funding ecosystems. What are the biggest misconceptions about the region that funders need to unlearn to support movements more effectively?
Central Asia is often treated as a singular, undifferentiated region, but this assumption erases the complexities of its histories, socio-political landscapes, and the distinct needs of its communities. Each country navigates unique challenges shaped by local contexts, requiring approaches that are responsive rather than generalized.
For instance, in Uzbekistan, doctors are required to report the sexual orientation and gender identity of HIV patients to the police, reinforcing criminalization and systemic violence against LGBTQ+ people, including trans women, lesbians, and bisexual women.
In contrast, Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Health recently acknowledged that while sexual orientation cannot be altered through external influence (“propaganda”), affirming narratives can help LGBTQ+ youth accept themselves (however, this article was later deleted). These policy differences reflect broader disparities in how states regulate and control communities, shaping vastly different lived experiences.
Yet, this diversity is often overlooked in donor strategies. It is frustrating when a foundation claims to support Central Asia but funds only a single project in Kyrgyzstan — without considering its impact (or lack thereof) on activism in Tajikistan or elsewhere in the region. Similarly, it is misleading when an activist from Eastern Europe is positioned as a representative of the EECA region while having no direct connection to Central Asia. These oversights reinforce existing power imbalances and contribute to the erasure of local movements.
For philanthropy to be meaningful, donors must be transparent about the scope of their engagement: are they funding initiatives in a single country, or are they committed to supporting movements across the region? Too often, foundations claim to work in Central Asia while failing to allocate resources in ways that genuinely strengthen communities and movements.
Addressing these gaps requires redistributing decision-making power. Activists from diverse Central Asian contexts must be actively involved in shaping funding priorities, as these decisions determine whose struggles are acknowledged and whose futures are supported.
A more just and intersectional funding approach ensures that those most affected by systemic injustices participate meaningfully in shaping the resource distribution intended to uphold their rights, safety, dignity, and self-determination.
