While some of the questions lay out the trajectory of our discussions, they do not seek to synthesise, but rather to share some reflections, disruptions and question marks, in the hope that this contributes to ongoing humble, reflexive activism in pursuit of accountability for sexual and gender-based violence. Intersecting oppressions, languages and actions of gender, justice, victimcy, and survival 8. Is the language used in discussing victims, perpetrators, survivors, sexual and genderbased violence acceptable? To what extent is it informed by patriarchy? 9. To what extent does this language impose on those who have experienced sexual and gender-based violence identities not of their choosing? What gives some people the right to define these terms for others? 10. In what ways do language and action regarding binary definitions of gender and sex foster inclusion and exclusion? Who is left out? Have transitional justice practitioners, the ICC and academics held themselves accountable for the trans-antagonism fostered by gender binaries in definitions of sex and gender in the Rome Statute and other instruments of justice? 11. Have we held ourselves accountable for the ableism often present in approaches to accountability? How, for example, do deaf women experience the international criminal justice system? Are measures taken to ensure that all victims and survivors have access to justice? 12. How might accountability mechanisms better address sexual and gender-based violence against men, particularly in contexts where sexual violence against men is so stigmatised? against LGBTQI people? Are accountability mechanisms doing enough to address the needs of those with marginalised sexual identities? 14. What are the distinctions between sexual violence and gender-based violence? What are the roles, potential and limitations of these distinctions and where are the areas of intersection? 15. Why have mainstream approaches to accountability for sexual and gender-based violence included, for the most part, so little interaction with the contributions of black feminisms and, particularly, intersectional approaches that take multiple intersecting identities and power relationships seriously? Which approaches would be fostered by this inclusion? What does the lack of inclusion suggest about power and race in the field of research and work in international justice and sexual and gender-based violence? 16. Very often, adversarial processes continue to reproduce patriarchal harms for witnesses. At the ICC, drawing on jurisprudence from the International Criminal Tribunals, for example, defences related to victims’ sexual history are excluded. This is particularly important in disrupting gendered oppression. In the Bemba case, this was particularly pertinent. How can the gains in this regard, in the Bemba case particularly, be maintained? How might the exclusion of such factors foster better reporting? 13. How might accountability mechanisms better address sexual and gender-based violence Questions answered and unanswered /25