2. Slide 2: the presenters wish to put a box out on day 1 of the conference asking attendees to write down one word that describes them and place this in the box. This will then be used to populate slide 2 with the various answers [NB: if this is not plausible, the slide will be populated regardless but as a less interactive version]
“Yesterday we asked you to, with one word, describe yourself, one word: which in that moment was how you saw yourself. This is what we got: mother, lawyer, kind, academic, woman, man, person, [etc.]”
“Now, how would you feel if this was the one word we used to describe you to others? The one word we used to write about you, speak to you? ‘As a lawyer… lawyers perceive, as a mother, mothers perceive…’ Would this speak to you? And would it speak to you in all areas of your life, all the parts of you?”

3. Slide 3:
“Few of us can describe ourselves in one word, mainly because we see ourselves as being more complex”
“When X and I did this exercise at work people would say, ‘well that depends, describe myself in terms of the work I do? Or what I am like? Or in my personal life? Depending on our audience we want to be seen differently, but rarely, if ever, do we want to be defined ‘just’ according to one thing”
“For example, as seen in our chosen identities from yesterday, no one in this room chose to describe themselves as a ‘woman’ or ‘man’
Yet, for simplification, this is often how we come to be defined, we reduce people to ‘single’ identities, and often without their input”

4. Slide 4:
“In 2014 Al Jazeera published stories of women from Kolkata’s red light areas, as part of their ‘where I live’ series. Many of the stories were heart-breaking, telling stories of young children, forced into sex work through poverty, never loved, but always used. The stories do also not appear to be true. I was researching in three of Kolkatas red lights, kalighat, kidderpore and sonagacchi – exploring how women in the areas manage their identities, in the sense of how they see themselves, how they think others see them and how they present this self. The three areas are fairly closed-off communities, with many women rarely or never leaving the areas, and face strong stigmatisation. Al Jazeera, as well as other political and academic debates, NGOs and intiatives spoke with women through this already defined identity of ‘sex worker’ or ‘prostitute’, emphasising either a woman’s right to her body, or the victimisation of the trade. The stories heard, were thus those catered to this audience – with women telling the expected stories. I would sit down with a woman, and ask her: tell me about yourself. She would respond “about my work?” when I explained that she could share any aspect of her life I would get answers such as “can I tell you about my marriage? My childhood? My dream?”. Through the stories emerging I found that none of the over 60 women I spoke to had described themselves, or referred to themselves, as a ‘sex worker’ or a ‘prostitute’ . I went back, and I asked women “why don’t you use these terms” and the answer I got was simple: ‘I am not this work, I am many things’. The stigma around these labels, of sex worker, and prostitute, were explained to me – where women felt they did not want to connect with each other, to try to remove themselves from this stigmatised identity. By al Jazeera, and others, the way these women were spoken to, thought of, described and discussed they were already reduced to this single identity, of ‘sex worker’ or ‘prostitute’ – but this identity was not even self-assigned, the way we all did yesterday. This identity was imposed, and ended up shaping interactions between both women and researchers or projects, as well as between women themselves. Beyond how we explain ourselves, there is the added idea of how we present ourselves. For example, how many of us would consider our ‘work’ and ‘private’ personas to be different, or indeed our ‘offline’ and ‘online’ personas to be different? These women may be in the sex trade. But they are not defined by it”

5. Slide 5:
“•I want to share the story of this lady. We met whilst I was working in West Africa for an organisation that promotes positive social change by engaging communities in processes of dialogue and reflection. A lot of the dialogue with communities was around female genital cutting, ultimately with a view to supporting the abandonment of it. 
•Female Genital Cutting is a practice underpinned by social norms. The practice is often carried older female members of the community – referred to often various ways as ‘cutters’. A loaded term, which is easy to stigmatise. 
•During our conversation, I asked this lady to describe herself and her role in the community. She identified as a 'community elder', the 'lead lady' and 'the mother of the community'. She was 'responsible'. She was someone who looked after the women who she lived with. 
•These are terms she used. 
•She was also – or had been previously – actively involved in the practice of FGC in her community.  
•Through this conversation, the importance of nuancing messaging and engagement to 'tap into' and 'connect with' people's complex identities. 
•Unlike the Al Jazeera example, and in common descriptions of cutters, it was her self-identification as someone who ‘looked after others’ as ‘responsible’, provided a 'hook' so to speak for the way in which a series of conversations through the programme and dialogues were initially framed. 
•Through this engagement, this lady went on to establish the first social mobilisation team in Gambia - self initiated and subsequently taking messages to more women and men: forming part of a wider movement that were talking about the harmful aspects of FGC. 
•The question is, if she had been defined and communicated to according to a narrow understanding of what it means to be ‘a cutter’, would she have engaged? And, moreover, would she have spread the message?"

6. Slide 6:
“The way we label people may influence both how people engage with programmes, and how they engage with others around them. In the case of women in the sex trade, a simple consideration of people’s own preferred identities led to a change in name of the area ‘mothers group’, from ‘mothers group for sex workers’ to simply ‘mothers group’. This increased attendance by nearly 60%. simple change in communicating for change, and an initial bottleneck for reaching the target population was removed”
“In the work that we all do, we often end up prioritising easily defined groups and in fairly broad ways. But, we have an opportunity to reflect upon how fully we understand the people we work with and for. When speaking to and about them, which part of their identity are we considering.? An appreciation of complex identities can matter not only how we decide what social and behavioural change is emphasised, but how people engage with the process of change”
“Ultimately, throughout this week and in the work that we do, we need to ask ourselves: who do we speak to? And, importantly, wo do we reach?”