The Supreme Court’s NALSA (2014) verdict recognised the right of self-identifi cation as male, female or transgender. The verdict was a watershed moment for the marginalised LGBTQIA+ community in India. Last week, a Bill introduced to amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019 weakened that right.
While the 2019 Act is based on the NALSA verdict and recognises the right of self-identifi cation, the proposed amendment regressively states that care has to be taken so that “such identifi cation cannot be extended on the basis of any acquirable characteristics, or personal choice, or claimed self-perceived identity of an individual”.
The Bill seeks to ‘define’ transgender persons only as those “having such socio-cultural identities”, persons who are intersex, and persons who have been “compelled” to “assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity”. Essentially, it claims to protect only those who are marginalised due to “biological reasons” for no choice of their own. This ‘definition’ betrays an utter lack of comprehension of the populace it seeks to protect It conflates intersex persons (who have biological conditions) with transgender individuals (whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth). To reduce this nuance to vague “biological reasons” betrays a lack of knowledge, understanding and empathy.
Further, by relying on ‘socio-cultural’ identities, the Bill effectively leaves trans men, non-binary individuals and other marginalised identities from its ambit. Under this Bill, the privacy and dignity of trans individuals will be compromised at every level—gender-affi rming treatment must be notified to the district authorities and medical scrutiny would be necessary to receive an identity certifi cate. These provisions show that the law’s framers have not consulted with members of the community on their needs. In the name of protecting people from abduction and traffi cking, the Bill also potentially criminalises chosen (non-biological) communities or families who provide support to LGBTQIA+ persons who have left their natal families. That the Bill says nothing about the real concerns of the community—reservation and support for education, employment and livelihood—reveals its intent is not really to help trans persons. The question the community has asked of the Bill is valid: who asked for these changes, who do they help and who do they harm? The answer is not the community. The Bill should be withdrawn.