The introduction of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)
Bill, 2016, in the Lok Sabha on August 2, 2016 seemed to change all that. But
transgender people claim that contrary to expectations, the Bill does
not address their concerns.
The Bill imperils some of the rights guaranteed by the Supreme Court’s April 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs Union of India. It also appears, in part, to be an exercise to stymie the landmark private member’s Bill passed by the Rajya Sabha in April 2015.
When Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) member Tiruchi Siva introduced the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill in the Rajya Sabha in 2014, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs, including Arun Jaitley and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, tried to dissuade him from doing so. This is not surprising, given the BJP’s stand on Section 377, which criminalises gay sex.
The stakeholders allege that the current Bill, introduced by Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Thaawarchand Gehlot, was readied without consulting them.
A cross section of transgender people feel that they had only consulted a few non-governmental organisations and funding agencies that are sympathetic to the BJP and ignored the vast majority of the transgender community.
As the 2016 Bill faced opposition from several quarters, the Lok Sabha Speaker referred it to a Standing Committee of the Social Justice Ministry, seeking a report within three months.
Vyjayanthi Vasanta Mogli, founding member of the Telangana Hijra Intersex Transgender Samiti, termed the Bill as the Transgender Persons Decimation and Violation of Rights Bill.
“To call the Bill problematic would be a mild understatement. It is outright draconian and poisonous and should be thrown into the dustbin,” she said.
In August, the samiti, along with other organisations, got together under the banner of the Hijra Tehzeeb Bachao and took out a rally in protest against the Bill.
The protesters demanded the scrapping of the 2016 Bill and implementation of the Bill moved by Tiruchi Siva, which more or less took care of their concerns.
While the government claims to have improved on the 2014 Bill, Tiruchi Siva says the recent Bill is a watered down version of his Bill.
Exclusionary definition
In contrast, the Bill’s definition of transgender is exclusionary and limiting: “Neither wholly female nor wholly male; or a combination of female or male; or neither female nor male; and whose sense of gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at the time of birth, and includes transmen and transwomen, persons with [themselves] inter-sex variations and gender-queers.” This covers only persons who are inter-sex and dysphoric. Inter-sex is a biological condition and a small category within the huge umbrella of different gender identities covered by transgender. Dysphoric is a diagnostic term used by psychologists to refer to persons who experience significant dysphoria (discontent) with the sex and gender they were assigned at birth and they belong to a smaller category among transgender people. As per the 2011 Census, there are 4.8 lakh transgender people in the country. In 2011, the Telangana government conducted a survey and found that there were 60,000 transgender people in 11 districts of the State, with 15,000 in Hyderabad alone. Vyjayanthi Vasanta Mogli believes that this effectively discredits the 2011 Census and shows that India is yet to properly enumerate its transgender population. Nevertheless, it proves that the 2016 Bill covers a very small percentage of the transgender population.
Self-identificationA major drawback in the Bill is the removal of the principle of self-identification, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in the NALSA case. Emphasising the right to personal autonomy and self-determination under Article 21, the court said: “The gender to which a person belongs is to be determined by the person concerned.” It upheld the right of a person to identify himself/herself as a male, female or a third gender irrespective of whether the person has undergone a gender change surgery through medical intervention. The judgment also said: “No restriction can be placed on one’s personal appearance or choice of dressing, subject to the restrictions contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution [freedom of speech and expression]”
The Bill imperils some of the rights guaranteed by the Supreme Court’s April 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs Union of India. It also appears, in part, to be an exercise to stymie the landmark private member’s Bill passed by the Rajya Sabha in April 2015.
When Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) member Tiruchi Siva introduced the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill in the Rajya Sabha in 2014, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs, including Arun Jaitley and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, tried to dissuade him from doing so. This is not surprising, given the BJP’s stand on Section 377, which criminalises gay sex.
The stakeholders allege that the current Bill, introduced by Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Thaawarchand Gehlot, was readied without consulting them.
A cross section of transgender people feel that they had only consulted a few non-governmental organisations and funding agencies that are sympathetic to the BJP and ignored the vast majority of the transgender community.
As the 2016 Bill faced opposition from several quarters, the Lok Sabha Speaker referred it to a Standing Committee of the Social Justice Ministry, seeking a report within three months.
Vyjayanthi Vasanta Mogli, founding member of the Telangana Hijra Intersex Transgender Samiti, termed the Bill as the Transgender Persons Decimation and Violation of Rights Bill.
“To call the Bill problematic would be a mild understatement. It is outright draconian and poisonous and should be thrown into the dustbin,” she said.
In August, the samiti, along with other organisations, got together under the banner of the Hijra Tehzeeb Bachao and took out a rally in protest against the Bill.
The protesters demanded the scrapping of the 2016 Bill and implementation of the Bill moved by Tiruchi Siva, which more or less took care of their concerns.
While the government claims to have improved on the 2014 Bill, Tiruchi Siva says the recent Bill is a watered down version of his Bill.
Exclusionary definition
In contrast, the Bill’s definition of transgender is exclusionary and limiting: “Neither wholly female nor wholly male; or a combination of female or male; or neither female nor male; and whose sense of gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at the time of birth, and includes transmen and transwomen, persons with [themselves] inter-sex variations and gender-queers.” This covers only persons who are inter-sex and dysphoric. Inter-sex is a biological condition and a small category within the huge umbrella of different gender identities covered by transgender. Dysphoric is a diagnostic term used by psychologists to refer to persons who experience significant dysphoria (discontent) with the sex and gender they were assigned at birth and they belong to a smaller category among transgender people. As per the 2011 Census, there are 4.8 lakh transgender people in the country. In 2011, the Telangana government conducted a survey and found that there were 60,000 transgender people in 11 districts of the State, with 15,000 in Hyderabad alone. Vyjayanthi Vasanta Mogli believes that this effectively discredits the 2011 Census and shows that India is yet to properly enumerate its transgender population. Nevertheless, it proves that the 2016 Bill covers a very small percentage of the transgender population.
Self-identificationA major drawback in the Bill is the removal of the principle of self-identification, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in the NALSA case. Emphasising the right to personal autonomy and self-determination under Article 21, the court said: “The gender to which a person belongs is to be determined by the person concerned.” It upheld the right of a person to identify himself/herself as a male, female or a third gender irrespective of whether the person has undergone a gender change surgery through medical intervention. The judgment also said: “No restriction can be placed on one’s personal appearance or choice of dressing, subject to the restrictions contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution [freedom of speech and expression]”
No comments:
Post a Comment