LGBTQ+ Rights in India: Legal Framework & Challenges.
Table of Contents
1. Synopsis
2. Introduction
3. Historical Context
4. Legal Reforms
5. Challenges
6. LGBTQ+ Rights Globally
7. A Brighter Future for the Community.
8. Conclusion
Synopsis
This paper examines the evolving legal landscape of LGBTQ+ rights in India, with a focus on the interplay between legislative reforms, the law, and societal attitudes. The research explores the historical and contemporary legal frameworks governing LGBTQ+ rights, including the decriminalization of homosexuality under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the recognition of transgender rights under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and the implications of recent judicial decisions on LGBTQ+ employment discrimination, family rights, etc. Through critical analysis, this paper argues that while significant progress has been made in advancing LGBTQ+ rights in India, persistent challenges and contradictions remain. The research highlights the need for a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to LGBTQ+ rights. Ultimately, this paper aims to contribute to the ongoing conversation on LGBTQ+ rights in India, underscoring the importance of continued legal and social reform to ensure the full realization of LGBTQ+ rights and dignity.
Page | 1
Introduction
The LGBTQ+ community is a diverse group of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other non-heterosexual or non-cisgender identities. United by shared experiences of prejudice, discrimination, and historical oppression, this community fosters a sense of solidarity and support. The term encompasses individuals involved in LGBTQ+ activism, as well as those who simply identify with the community.
The term LGBTQ+ is used to denote the following sects of people:
Lesbian: A lesbian means, a woman who is sexually attracted to another woman. Gay: A gay means, a man who is sexually attracted to another man.
Bisexual: A bisexual person is someone who is attracted to people of both sexes.
Transgender: It is a term used to define people whose gender identity and gender expression, differs from that usually associated with their birth sex.
Queer: Queer is a term used to refer to sexual gender identities who are neither heterosexual nor cisgender (opposite of transgender). The term ‘queer’ in itself is a community as they generally go for using pronouns instead of being restricted to, He, She, etc.
The ‘+’ in ‘LGBTQ+’ signifies that the above list is not exhaustive it includes other categories as well such as Pansexual, asexual, intersex, etc.
Homosexuality refers to attraction between people of the same sex. The term ‘gay’ is often used interchangeably with homosexual, while ‘lesbian’ specifically describes female homosexuality. Cultural attitudes toward homosexuality have varied widely throughout history, ranging from acceptance to condemnation. Ancient Greece and Rome for instance, exhibited notable instances of homosexuality. A rich tapestry of symbols has emerged to represent the diverse spectrum of the gay community. The iconic rainbow flag, designed by Gilbert Baker, is the most prominent, with each color holding a specific meaning: Pink for sexuality, Red for life, Orange for healing, Yellow for the sun, Green for nature, Blue for art, Indigo for harmony,
Page | 2
and Violet for spirit. Beyond the rainbow, other symbols like the Greek lambda, triangles, ribbons, and gender symbols are also commonly used to express gay identity and acceptance.1
Shakespeare’s immortal question, “What’s in a name?”, underscores the primacy of essence over label. A rose, regardless of its name, retains its fragrant nature. Similarly, the intrinsic value of a human being transcends sexual orientation. The bedrock principle of human rights the inherent quality of all human beings- is irrevocably tied to human dignity. Any form of discrimination, particularly based on one’s sexual preference, is a direct affront to this fundamental tenet. Such actions not only violate the dignity of individuals but also contravene the foundational spirit of the Constitution of India, which unequivocally guarantees justice and equality to all citizens, irrespective of social, economic, or political status.
Historical Context
Homosexuality is not a new concept; it has been prevalent in India for a very long time. Ancient scriptures such as the Rig Veda which dates back to around 1500 BC and historical artifacts depict same-sex relationships, challenging the notion of it being a modern concept. From homosexuality described in the Rig Veda and showcased in sculptures to the harems maintained by Muslim Nawabs and Hindu aristocrats, and explicit references in several other ancient scriptures, India’s history is replete with examples of diverse sexual orientations. Even medieval Muslim chronicles, such as those featuring Malik Kafur, acknowledge male homosexuality as a part of the societal fabric.
Amara Das Wilhelm in her book compiled extensive research into ancient and medieval Sanskrit texts. The book reveals that homosexuality and the ‘third gender’ were not only prevalent in Indian society but also widely accepted. Her work cites an ancient Indian book, which explicitly mentions lesbian relationships known as ‘Swarinis’. These women were often married, raised children, and were fully integrated into both mainstream and ‘third gender’ communities.2 However, the value attached to these experiences diminished following the advent of Vedic Brahmanism and the British Colonial Era. Gita Thadani (a researcher) argues that the patriarchal structures imposed by the Aryan invasion, dating back to 1500 B.C., were instrumental in suppressing homosexuality.
1 LGBT community, Wikipedia (Sept. 22, 2002), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_community. 2 Amara Das Wilhelm, Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex (2000).
Page | 3
The Manusmriti (an ancient legal text of Hinduism), outlines punishments such as ex communication, hefty fines, and corporal punishment for homosexuality. The existence of these penalties suggests that homosexuality was a recognized practice at the time. However, the World Health Organization’s 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder contradicts the notion that it was once considered unnatural. This historical shift in perspective underscores the evolving understanding of sexual orientation.
The LGBTQ+ rights movement in India has been a protracted struggle against Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law criminalizing homosexuality. This archaic legislation, introduced in 1860, deemed same-sex intercourse “against the order of nature.” Despite facing significant social and legal challenges, the LGBTQ+ community demonstrated resilience and determination. The publication of “The World of Homosexuality” in 1977 marked a pivotal moment, advocating for acceptance rather than mere tolerance. The subsequent recognition of ‘hijras’ as a third gender in 1944 and the first pride march in South Asia in 1999 were significant milestones in the community’s journey towards equality. The Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860 during the Victorian era, is a relic of a bygone age. Rooted in outdated Judeo-Christian morality rather than scientific understanding, it criminalized homosexuality, a provision that marginalized and stigmatized countless individuals. This archaic law not only relegated LGBTQ+ people to a subordinate status based on their identity but also violated their fundamental right to privacy and dignity. Section 377 was framed according to the Buggery Act, which was a law of the sixteenth century.3 The Buggery Act, of 1533, categorized all homosexual acts as unnatural offenses. This act was passed by the Parliament of England in 1533 when King Henry VII was ruling. It has defined buggery as an act that is against the will of God. All these unnatural offences were punishable by death under this act. Thomas Macaulay, who was heading the first law commission of India had brought this law to India as Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The act remained in force until it was repealed and replaced by the Offences Against the Person Act of 1828.
In a progressive society, sexual orientation and gender identity should have no bearing on an individual’s role or worth. The notion that homosexuality is “against the order of nature” is absurd. Scientific research has documented homosexual behavior in over 1500 animal species. So, if it is prevalent in so many species, then how can a single species i.e. human beings declare it to be against the order of nature?
3 Buggery Act 1533, Wikipedia (July 22, 2003), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533.
Page | 4
Legal Reforms
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT Of Delhi (2009):
The arduous journey to decriminalize homosexuality in India began with the Naz Foundation’s 2001 challenge to Section 377. This non-governmental organization, building on the groundwork laid by AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan’s 1994 petition, sought to legalize consensual same-sex relations. Despite initial setbacks, including the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the case in 2003, the Naz Foundation persevered. With the Supreme Court’s backing, the case returned to the High Court, where it gained momentum through interventions by the National AIDS Control Organization and the coalition “Voices Against 377.”
A landmark 2009 Delhi High Court judgment declared Section 377 unconstitutional insofar as it criminalized consensual adult sexual conduct. The court grounded this decision in fundamental rights to life, liberty, equality, and privacy, enshrined in the Indian Constitution. While celebrated by many, this victory was short-lived, as the Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2013.
Ultimately, it was a 2018 Supreme Court judgment that decisively decriminalized homosexuality, marking a historic turning point for LGBTQ+ rights in India. This watershed moment is commemorated annually on July 2nd, the date of the 2009 High Court ruling.4
Suresh Kumar Kaushal and Another v. NAZ Foundation and Ors. (2013):
This case was filed as an appeal against the above-mentioned judgment on Section 377 of the Indian penal code, i.e. against the case of NAZ Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009).5 The following issues were raised:
Whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution?
Whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution? Whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, concluded that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is not unconstitutional and does not violate any right contained in the
4 Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Wikipedia (Nov. 26, 2009),
5 Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation, 10972 (Supreme Ct. India 2013).
Page | 5
Indian Constitution. It was noted that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is a gender-neutral provision and does not target any particular group of the society but criminalizes those acts which if committed by a person irrespective of their age or consent will constitute an offence.
Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2018):
This judgment has not only been a transformation for millions of lives but also a stepping stone towards a progressing society. The five-judge bench overruled the Suresh Kaushal judgment by focusing on the doctrine of progressive realization of rights and holding that the goal of a progressive society should always be looking forward. The major issue here was the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Petitioner’s side submitted that homosexuality is very natural and not any kind of illness. It is a reflection of personal choice, and its criminalization will lead to the violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by affecting the dignity and gender identity of an individual. Non acceptance of the community by society at large does not mean that any member of that community is an alien, and therefore there is a need for recognition of the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, which constitutes 7 to 8 percent of the Indian population. It was also mentioned that people who choose inter-caste marriages are the same as people who choose a partner of the same sex, as it is their right to choose. Society may disapprove of inter-caste marriages, but it is the obligation of the court to enforce the constitutional rights of every citizen. The position of the LGBTQ+ community is the same; even though the majority disapproves of them, it is the duty of the court to protect their fundamental and constitutional rights.
Judgment: The court stated that it does not matter how minuscule the LGBTQIA+ section is; they too have the right to privacy, which includes individual autonomy and sexual orientation. Their choice of partner may be different, but that does not mean they will be punished for it. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code does curtail their human dignity and their personal choice, therefore violating their right to privacy which is covered under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The judgment underscores the imperative for society and its laws to evolve in tandem. By rectifying a fundamental flaw in constitutional interpretation, it has catalyzed a shift toward inclusivity. The judgment has exposed the historical marginalization of this community, perpetuated by societal pressures and a consequent lack of understanding. This ruling is a pivotal step in fostering a more empathetic and pluralistic India. The Constitution envisions a nation continually transformed by its principles. Transformative constitutionalism seeks not
Page | 6
only to protect individual rights but also to empower marginalized groups, fostering social, economic, and political progress. Its ultimate goal is to transition from outdated societal norms to a forward-thinking, equitable future.
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019:
Transgender individuals, as defined by the World Health Organization, are those whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth. For instance, a person born male might identify as female. India’s 2011 Census data revealed a small but significant population of 487,803 individuals who did not identify as male or female, categorized as “other.”6 This category encompassed transgender people. Recognizing the substantial challenges faced by transgender individuals, including social stigma, discrimination, and limited access to education, healthcare, employment, and government services, the Indian government established an Expert Committee in 2013. A landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2014 affirmed the right of transgender individuals to self-identify their gender as male, female, or a third gender. The Court further mandated government action to legally recognize transgender persons, combat discrimination, and implement targeted welfare programs. The Committee offered several recommendations encompassing the definition of transgender persons, the certification process, the inclusion of discrimination against transgender persons as a defined term, and the mandatory appointment of complaints officers in all workplaces. However, the 2016 Bill was rendered null and void with the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha. A subsequent bill, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 19, 2019, as a replacement.
The 2018 bill, which criminalized begging, sparked widespread condemnation from transgender individuals, activists, students, and legal experts. Transgender people across India protested vehemently against the legislation, arguing it was a step backward and contravened the landmark NALSA judgment.7 The bill disproportionately impacted transgender communities like hijras and jogtas, who often relied on begging for ritualistic or economic reasons. Both the 2018 bill and the subsequent 2019 act were met with fierce opposition, with the day of their passage being labeled a “black day” and a “gender justice murder day” by many transgender people.
6https://prsindia.org/billtrack/prs-products/issues-for-consideration-3283.
7 National Legal Ser. Auth v. Union of India and Ors, 2014 INSC 275.
Page | 7
Challenges
India maintains a conservative stance on sexuality, with open discussions often taboo. Homosexuality, in particular, is heavily stigmatized. Homophobia remains prevalent, deciding to come out to colleagues or acquaintances a complex one. While metropolitan areas like Delhi and Mumbai exhibit greater acceptance, LGBTQIA+ individuals may still face challenges in openly expressing their identity. It’s crucial to distinguish between being out and coming out. Even in tolerant work environments, discussions about LGBTQIA+ issues can be met with discomfort.
The experiences of transgender individuals in India are diverse and complex. While the Hijra community has achieved a degree of visibility and support, other transgender groups, such as female-to-male individuals, face significant challenges in terms of political representation and public awareness. India’s legal recognition of a “third gender” has been a step forward, but the
concept of non-binary identity remains largely unfamiliar outside of specific LGBTQIA+ circles. The lack of a gender-neutral pronoun in Hindi underscores this gap in linguistic inclusivity. Navigating public spaces can be particularly daunting for transgender and gender non-conforming people in a society deeply rooted in gender segregation. Examples include the exclusive “ladies’ cars” on Mumbai trains and the ubiquitous gendered public restrooms. These physical barriers, combined with societal misconceptions and discrimination, can mirror the challenges faced at home but intensified by a foreign cultural context and limited support networks.
Workplace discrimination is a common issue for LGBTQ+ individuals, with nearly half experiencing unfair treatment. This problem is worse for LGBTQ+ people of color, who are more likely to encounter employment barriers and verbal abuse. To escape harassment, many LGBTQ+ employees feel compelled to hide aspects of their identity. LGBTQ+ individuals often encounter prejudice in the job market, limiting their career opportunities and perpetuating economic inequality. People frequently make hurtful comments, pose uncomfortable questions, taunt, and even resort to bullying queer individuals in the workplace. Most Indian companies lack anti-discrimination policies for queer individuals. There is absolutely no space for queer individuals in the government sector. While multinational corporations claim to be striving for inclusivity and promoting queer-friendly environments, much of it is just window dressing. True queer friendliness requires taking active steps to hire people regardless of their sexual
Page | 8
orientation or gender identity. Creating awareness is crucial in dispelling stereotypes and promoting understanding and acceptance of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.
Despite our claims of progress and modernity, the LGBTQ+ community continues to endure appalling atrocities across various societal strata. Bullying, discrimination, and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals are pervasive, with particularly devastating consequences for young people. A UNESCO report from 2018 underscored the alarming rates of bullying faced by LGBTQ+ students, leaving enduring emotional scars. This harassment often serves as a precursor to a lifetime of prejudice and marginalization. Honor killings remain a horrific reality for many LGBTQ+ individuals, especially women who identify as lesbian or bisexual. The concept of “corrective rape” as a means of “curing” homosexuality is a cruel and inhumane practice that inflicts unimaginable suffering. Even in urban environments, where societal acceptance is often perceived as more progressive, LGBTQ+ people face rejection from their families, who prioritize social reputation over familial love. This ostracism can lead to homelessness and a reliance on harmful coping mechanisms. Forcibly confined in “correction centers,” LGBTQ+ individuals are subjected to psychological torture and drug abuse, leaving lasting physical and mental health issues. Isolation and the weight of societal stigma frequently contribute to severe depression and anxiety. These systemic injustices highlight the urgent need for comprehensive legal protections, educational awareness, and societal change to create a world where all individuals are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Gay and lesbian youth face a disproportionate crisis. They are two to six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers, making suicide the leading cause of death within this demographic. Over a third of all reported teen suicides involve gay or lesbian youth. Compounding this crisis, gay and lesbian individuals are at significantly higher risk for substance abuse. Approximately 30% of both the lesbian and gay male populations struggle with alcohol addiction. These challenges are often exacerbated by a hostile school environment, with nearly one-third of gay and lesbian youth dropping out due to bullying and harassment. In essence, gay and lesbian youth experience elevated rates of suicide, substance abuse, and school dropout, highlighting the urgent need for support and societal change.
India is a country that is considered to accept and embrace all cultures and traditions. But when it comes to the acceptance of homosexuality in mainstream society, Indian society remains rigid, and still, when the whole world is accepting the LGBTQ community, we don’t want to
Page | 9
accept LGBT people in our so-called modern society. The irony of the situation is that LGBT people do not get their complaints registered in police stations as they fear more exploitation by the law. They fear that lodging an FIR or reporting an incident of injustice against them to the authorities may expose them to society since LGBTQ individuals often don’t reveal their sexual orientation openly. One 25-year-old gay cross-dresser from Bilaspur Bihar, Rajesh Yadav, was brutally beaten and sexually assaulted just because he chose to be himself. A girl from Bihar had said that the police regularly visited her house harassed her for money and even sexually abused her. In 2014, a doctor from Bangalore stated that he was extorted for money when he had come out as gay. These are just some of the reported incidents, now imagine the number of unreported atrocities that the community has or continues to face. India’s LGBTQ+ community consists of 135 million people. Despite being home to the world’s largest LGBTQIA+ community, India fails to adequately support its queer population. The community lacks political representation as well, we rarely see any queer representation in the Parliament or the decision-making processes of the government.
The term “fixing” is often used in medical circles to carry out conversion therapies on members of the LGBTQ+ community. Despite overwhelming medical consensus condemning these practices as dangerously discriminatory, they continue to be inflicted upon members of the LGBTQ+ community. The insidious use of terms like “fix” and “correct” by medical professionals, often in conversations with concerned parents, underscores the harmful and unfounded belief that being LGBTQ+ is something that should be “cured”. This abhorrent practice has existed for ages, but the disturbing reality is that even today, many small and big hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes across India are indulging in illegal conversion therapies and subjecting victims to immense physical and mental cruelty. The range of treatment varies from mild, moderate, and extreme therapies. While some individuals are subjected to counseling and prayer therapies, others are made to undergo shock treatments and exorcism, and many are beaten to a pulp so that they are fearful of their innate gender orientation. An individual’s gender identity is an inherent aspect of their personhood and a fundamental right. Imposing a change in gender identity is a deeply violating and inhumane act that infringes on basic human rights. There have been many cases where victims describe being subjected to harmful practices. Doctors often misinform families, asserting that homosexuality can be ‘treated’ and is a medical condition. In other instances, victims are taken to those practicing black magic, under the false pretense of ‘correcting’ their sexual identity. The lack of legal protection for victims against their parents further hinders efforts to combat conversion therapy.
Page | 10
The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) has consistently affirmed that homosexuality is not a mental illness.8In a 2014 statement, the organization declared a lack of scientific evidence supporting this claim, aligning with established psychiatric guidelines. The IPS reiterated this position in 2018, emphasizing the need for acceptance and equality for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Despite these clear professional guidelines, conversion therapy—a harmful practice aimed at changing sexual orientation—persists in India. These methods, often involving psychologically damaging techniques such as electroconvulsive therapy, hypnosis, drug-induced aversion, and harmful forms of talk therapy, have been linked to severe mental health consequences including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Recognizing the detrimental effects of conversion therapy, the National Medical Commission issued a ban on the practice in 2022.
While single LGBTQ+ individuals in India are legally permitted to adopt, the law currently prohibits adoption by same-sex couples. This discriminatory policy undermines the dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals by denying them the fundamental right to family formation based solely on their sexual orientation. The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, which ostensibly grants adoption rights to all regardless of religion, paradoxically bars same-sex couples from adopting due to the requirement of a two-year marital union. As same-sex marriage is not recognized in India, this provision effectively disqualifies LGBTQ+ couples from parenthood. The government’s reluctance to approve adoptions for same-sex couples is further exacerbated by the societal stigma surrounding these relationships. Adoption centers with religious affiliations often deny same-sex couples the opportunity to build families. This discrimination is rooted in outdated prejudices, despite overwhelming evidence that children raised by same-sex parents thrive equally well, if not better, than those raised by heterosexual parents. Both LGBTQ+ parents and their children continue to face pervasive social stigma and discrimination, perpetuating a harmful cycle of exclusion and inequality. India’s discriminatory adoption laws directly contravene the fundamental rights to equality and life enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. LGBTQ+ citizens, like all Indians, have the inherent right to participate fully in society, including the ability to build families. The capacity to nurture and care for children, not sexual orientation or marital status, should determine eligibility for adoption. The Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex couples’ rights under the Equal Protection Act underscores the need for legal and social acceptance. Continuing to deny LGBTQ+ couples the right to adopt perpetuates harmful stereotypes and hinders societal progress. To foster
8 https://indianpsychiatricsociety.org/ips-position-statement-regarding-lgbtq/.
Page | 11
inclusivity, India must overhaul its adoption laws to prioritize the child’s best interests and eliminate discriminatory barriers based on sexual orientation.
A progressive society should allow same-sex couples the opportunity to prove their capacity for loving parenthood. The privilege of raising children is a fundamental human right that should not be denied based on sexual orientation. Many countries have already recognized this by legalizing same-sex adoption. India, while making strides with the decriminalization of homosexuality and LGBTQ+ rights, must now take the next step. To foster inclusivity and combat social stigma, the government should implement comprehensive sensitization programs.
Upon discovering their child’s homosexuality, many parents initially react with denial. This denial, often rooted in social or religious pressures, can lead to demands for physical and psychological evaluations. The underlying fear is that a homosexual child will face a bleak future. Faced with this parental response, children often find themselves under immense pressure to conform to societal expectations of heterosexuality. Those who resist may face rejection and ostracism from their families. In reality, society as a whole suffers from the tolerance of discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals. Bullying is a prime example. It’s crucial to note that many victims of bullying targeted with homophobic slurs aren’t even gay; they’re simply seen as deviating from gender stereotypes. Regardless of sexual orientation, bullying traumatizes not only the target but also witnesses, who often experience fear, guilt, and anxiety. This ripple effect extends to families, teachers, and the broader community. Moreover, the pervasive negative stereotypes about LGBTQ+ people can lead to internalized homophobia or heterosexism, causing significant harm to individuals.
LGBTQ+ Rights Globally
The journey to adulthood for LGBTQ individuals is often marked by a stark contrast between their potential and the harsh realities they face. While many strive for the same opportunities and happiness as their peers, their path is riddled with unique challenges. Discrimination frequently begins at home, with coming out often leading to rejection, abuse, or even homelessness. These experiences can have devastating consequences, including educational disruptions and increased vulnerability. Even after overcoming these early hurdles, LGBTQ adults continue to face prejudice in various aspects of life. Workplace discrimination, hate crimes, and legal obstacles persist, causing significant emotional and psychological distress. Despite legal advancements, such as marriage equality and fair housing laws, the fight for full
Page | 12
acceptance and equality is far from over. The ongoing struggle for LGBTQ rights highlights the need for a society that embraces diversity and ensures that everyone has the opportunity to live with dignity and respect. For example, the US Supreme Court in the past had heard a case involving a bakery owner from Colorado who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, arguing that his religious beliefs superseded anti-discrimination laws protecting equal treatment.9 Three years after the Obama administration told transgender individuals that they could serve openly in the military, the Trump administration reversed it. They began to implement a controversial new policy that would rescind the rule allowing transgender individuals to serve in the US military. Donald Trump did this over the objections of senior military officers and in spite of the fact that about 15,000 transgender persons were serving with no problems.10
Traditional sources of support, such as religion, often prove inaccessible for LGBTQ youth, particularly among Latinos and African Americans. Major Christian denominations in the United States, including the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and United Methodist Church, maintain formal stances that either condemn homosexuality or mandate celibacy for LGBTQ individuals. These churches prohibit same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ clergy. Many independent and Pentecostal churches hold similar beliefs. Growing up within these environments can be deeply isolating for LGBTQ individuals, who often grapple with the fear of rejection and condemnation if their sexual orientation or gender identity were to be revealed. Such circumstances can foster a culture of silence, where LGBTQ individuals feel compelled to conceal their true selves.
A 2021 report from the United States titled “LGBT People’s Experiences of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”, reported that:
46% of LGBT workers have experienced unfair treatment at work at some point in their lives. 11% of LGBT employees of color reported being fired or not hired in the last year. 57% of LGBT employees reported the unfair treatment was motivated by religious beliefs.
9 Colleen Slevin, Colorado Supreme Court to hear case against Christian baker who refused to make LGBTQ-themed cake, PBS News (Oct. 3, 2023), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/colorado supreme-court-to-hear-case-against-christian-baker-who-refused-to-make-lgbtq-themed-cake. 10 Hallie Jackson, Trump’s controversial transgender military policy goes into effect, (Apr. 12, 2019), https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes effect.
Page | 13
50% of LGBT employees are not out to their current supervisor and 26% of LGBT employees are not out to any co-workers.
34% of LGBT employees have left a job due to treatment by their employer.11
istorically, homosexuality has been a subject largely taboo in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, with limited exceptions in urban environments. In contrast, Western societies exhibited more liberal attitudes, although homosexuality remained a largely unspoken topic during the early 20th century. The latter half of the 20th century witnessed a significant shift in Western countries, as homosexuality transformed from a private matter to a prominent political issue. This evolution was particularly pronounced in the United States, where the gay rights movement emerged as a cornerstone of the broader civil rights activism of the 1960s. The Stonewall riots of 1969 marked a pivotal moment, galvanizing the gay community and inspiring a surge of public visibility. Consequently, North America and Western Europe experienced an unprecedented awareness of gay and lesbian communities.
Instances of state-sanctioned violence against LGBTQ+ individuals have been documented globally. In Namibia, police were ordered to kill homosexuals, while Jamaican students faced physical assault for their sexual orientation. Brazil witnessed the murder of gay individuals allegedly at the hands of the anti-gay group (Wake up, dear) “Acorda Coracao.” The severity of homophobia is further highlighted by the Ecuadorian gay rights group “Quitogay”, which required Amnesty International’s protection due to overwhelming threats.
A Brighter Future for the Community
To foster a truly inclusive society, we must prioritize the following:
Implement comprehensive laws and policies that safeguard the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals, protecting them from discrimination, violence, and hate crimes. This includes ensuring equal access to healthcare and protecting the rights of transgender people.
Encourage open-mindedness and acceptance within families to create a supportive environment for LGBTQIA+ youth. This foundational step is crucial for building an inclusive society.
11 https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-workplace-discrimination/.
Page | 14
Establish platforms for LGBTQIA+ youth to connect, share experiences, and collaborate. Promoting Pride Month and Pride parades can significantly contribute to creating a more visible and accepting community.
It’s imperative to dispel harmful stereotypes and misconceptions about LGBTQIA+ individuals. Sexual orientation is a natural variation of human experience, not a disorder. By promoting equality and inclusivity, we can create a society where everyone feels valued and respected.
Ultimately, the goal is to create a world where LGBTQIA+ individuals are treated with dignity, respect, and equality.
Conclusion
LGBTQ+ individuals continue to face disproportionate challenges rooted solely in their gender identities. Discrimination, harassment, and violence pervade their lives, from educational institutions to workplaces. Despite being equally human, they are subjected to unjustified scrutiny and prejudice for their sexual orientation and gender expression. Criminalizing consensual same-sex relationships is not only morally reprehensible but also contradicts scientific understanding. Our constitution guarantees equality and protection from discrimination for all, regardless of gender. The “My life, my choice, my partner with consent” mantra underscores the fundamental right to live with dignity and autonomy. While significant progress has been made, LGBTQ+ people still grapple for full societal acceptance. Legal recognition of same-sex unions is a crucial step, but it does not equate to true equality. Issues like adoption rights, protection from oppression, and overall societal inclusion remain pressing concerns. India has a long way to go before it can claim to be a truly inclusive nation.
Page | 15
To download this note as a PDF and have a handy reference for future use
Are you missing out on internships, job opportunities, and essential law notes?
Don’t worry! Join over 45,000 students who are already part of the largest legal community. Don’t get left behind!
Become a member of our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) for instant update
