Row over Transgender Amendment Bill explained: Why are some opposed to it?

AReinvigorated row has erupted o'er the recently-tabled transgendered Persons ( shelter of Rights) Amendment federal reserve note, 2026, which activists say, reduces the scope of the current law that was passed in 2019 to protect the rights and benefits of transgender persons across the country.Union minister for social justice and empowerment Virendra Kumar presented the bill in the Lok Sabha on March 13. The proposal aims to introduce changes to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.ALSO READ | 'Lawmakers' imaginations of trans bodies': Activists reject amendment Bill in its entiretyWhat is the issue?In 2014, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that recognised transgender persons as a separate gender category. It said every individual has the fundamental right to choose their own gender identity.Then, in 2019, the Parliament brought in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. This law barred discrimination against transgender persons in areas such as education, housing, employment, healthcare and access to public services.Now, in 2026, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, has been introduced in Parliament. The concern raised by activists and members of the transgender community is about how the term “transgender person” has been defined in this new bill.It all comes down to the definitionThe bill states that a clear definition is needed to ensure proper identification and protection of transgender persons, so that the benefits under the current law reach the right people.Under the proposed changes, protection is meant only for those “who face severe social exclusion due to biological reasons for no fault of their own and no choice of their own.”This approach goes back to the understanding that existed before 2014, placing focus on biological factors to decide eligibility. In its 2014 ruling, the top court had upheld the right to self-identify one’s gender, allowing a person to identify as male, female or third gender.The self-identification factorSelf-identification refers to how a person understands their own gender. Gender reflects a person’s way of being. It shapes how they feel, dress, interact and behave. A person’s gender identity develops through their own sense of self as well as how society recognises them.In cases where a person’s sex and gender do not match, the need to affirm one’s identity becomes important. The right to decide one’s own identity helps individuals claim space that society may not provide.The concern now is that the bill moves away from the basic principle of self-identification of gender. So, it restricts the law to a limited group of transpeople who belong to certain socio-cultural communities that are more visible in public, such as hijras, kinnars, aravanis and jogtas.It excludes people who may identify as a man or a woman, and also those who identify as non-binary or genderqueer, as mentioned in an earlier HT report. This reduces the number of people recognised as transgender and takes away important protections under the law.Another issue is that under the 2019 Act, getting a transgender identity card was an administrative process. A person could apply to the district magistrate and receive a certificate of identity without any medical test or clinical checks.However, this new bill proposes setting up a medical board led by a chief medical officer or a deputy chief medical officer at the central or state or UT level. This board will make recommendations to the district magistrate.ALSO READ | Census 2027 to also include transgender-headed households, Rajya Sabha toldTransgender activists demand bill be withdrawnTransgender activists have raised concerns over the absence of discussion before the bill was introduced. They also say the changes reduce the scope of the existing law and go against the right to self-identify one’s gender.Krishanu, a transwoman, spoke at a press conference attended by lawyers and members of civil society on Monday. She said the bill places heavy penalties on anyone found to cause “grievous hurt whether by mutilation, emasculation, castration, amputation, or any surgical, chemical, or hormonal procedure with the intent of, or in the course of, compelling a person to assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity against the will or consent of such persons”. This, she said, suggests that transgender identities are forced through pressure or influence and ignores that gender transition takes place over time and is not a single surgical act, HT had reported earlier.Kabir Mann, a transman and a primary school teacher, said, “Sometimes the school simply does not allow me to give the exam due to my identity. Other times, I have to wait at the gate for an hour because the principal does not know the meaning of the word “trans”. If I am let in, people review the documents about my gender identity first and my educational qualifications second. All the while the government claims that the transgender identity cards are valid.”Activists said they want the bill to be withdrawn completely. “We are currently working on advocacy incentives with progressive members of parliament. Since the bill was introduced on Friday, many of them have been calling us to work together,” said Ritu, a transwoman.(With inputs from Aaditya Khatwani)