The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, has continued to trigger protests across the country. Without addressing the concerns of the LGBTQ community and considering any amendment to the draft Bill, the Rajya Sabha has passed the same version of the draft law that was passed by the Lok Sabha.
In April 2019, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court delivered a historic judgment in Arunkumar v. The Inspector General of Registration. This judgment marks the beginning of a normative journey of intersex human rights in India.
Details of the judgement –
- The court took up the issue of validity of consent given on behalf of intersex infants for undergoing sex selective surgeries.
- It held that the consent of the parent cannot be considered as the consent of the child. Hence, such surgeries should be prohibited. This is a momentous judgment as it recognises the consent rights of intersex children and the right to bodily integrity.
- The judgment declared a prohibition on sex selective surgeries on intersex children in Tamil Nadu. Complying with the directions of the court, Tamil Nadu banned sex reassignment surgeries on intersex infants and children.
Transgender Persons Protection Bill, 2019 – Pitfalls –
- As the Transgender Bill also deals with issues related to human rights protection of intersex persons, it needs to be examined in light of the developments of intersex human rights.
- The title of the Bill itself is exclusionary as it does not accommodate all persons whose legal protection it seeks to recognise. It is instructive for the legislature to appreciate the nuances when it comes to distinguishing between transgender and intersex persons.
- Transgenders have a different gender identity than what was assigned to them at birth, while intersex indicates diversity of gender based on biological characteristics at birth.
- The Bill is not in alignment with the evolving international human rights framework.
- The Bill also conflates the condition of intersex persons with transgender persons. Barring a few overlaps, the legal and welfare needs of intersex persons are different from those of transgender persons.
- Some persons born or living with intersex traits can live with a non-binary identity or may choose to live as gender fluid persons. The Bill fails to account for these possibilities.
- Neither does it provide for the definition of terms such as gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics.
Way forward –
- Parliament will be well-advised to consider changing the title of the Bill to Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019.
- The definition should highlight this distinction between transgender persons and intersex persons enabling them to exercise the rights which they are entitled to.
- Intersex conditions are termed in derogatory terms even by medical professionals. To address this, the Bill should have included a provision directing medical professionals to ensure that intersex traits are not characterised as “disorders of sex development”.
- Intersex traits should not be considered as genetic defects/ disorders, and terms like ‘gender dysphoria’ should be used to characterise them.
World over, the discourse around gender and sexuality has evolved a great deal in the last decade. However, the current legislative discourse on this issue suffers from lack of foundational understanding. Intersex persons are particularly vulnerable and experience barriers in access to education, employment, marriage, etc. In its current form, the Bill turns back the clock on decades of positive change brought about by intersex activists.
Source – The Hindu
QUESTION – The Transgender Persons Protection Bill, 2019 fails to define and categorise intersex human rights in India. Comment.