Transgender rights & transforming society
The school years were hell, Kalki Subramaniam remembers. Labelled a boy at birth, she didn't 'fit into her body' and just looking at herself in the mirror was an ordeal. In addition, there was relentless bullying by the other kids because she was too 'feminine'. Just going to the boys' loo was torture. So little is known about gender identity, and so much is feared through tropes. (Hindustan Times)
And, yet, says Kalki, she was one of the lucky ones who didn't have to run away from home, who didn't have to turn to begging or sex work and risk getting HIV/AIDS. She made a pact with her family to transition only after her two sisters were married. And she continued her education — a Masters' degree through distance education — and is today the author of four books, two in Tamil and two in English; the latest out this past week.
To read We Will Not Be Erased: The Courage to Rise Above Hate, a collection of Kalki's poems, notes, illustrations and what she calls, 'very short stories', is to ride alongside a journey of despair and discovery, rejection and redemption. 'I have my own dark moments,' she said at an audience interaction organised by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and the Keshav Suri Foundation in New Delhi. 'But if I give up, it will affect not only my family, but my community.' And, so, she chooses hope.
The book comes at a time when transgender rights globally are under threat. US President Donald Trump's government now recognises only two genders, male and female. Transwomen athletes cannot participate in women's sport. And this past week, the conservative-majority Supreme Court upheld a ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. The UK Supreme Court has ruled there are only two genders for the purposes of the Equality Act. Hungary has banned the Pride Parade. Russia has banned legal gender change. And, in February this year, Argentinian president Javier Milei barred access to legal gender recognition for minors.
India has its silver linings. The 2014 NALSA judgment recognised a third gender. Every citizen has the right to self-identify with whichever gender is best suited to them. Recent rulings from various high courts have generally been progressive — the right to be known as parents rather than father and mother on their child's birth certificate (Kerala), the right of a transgender woman to file a complaint of cruelty against her husband and in-laws (Andhra Pradesh), and the right to form a chosen family (Madras).
And, yet, even the Supreme Court fell short on issues like adoption and marriage rights for the LGBTQI+ community. Other disparities are glaring. For instance, the punishment for raping a transgender person is at most two years. And a Supreme Court recommendation for equal opportunities for education and employment remains largely on paper.
Even something as basic as a head count of transgender citizens is fuzzy. Census 2011's calculation of 4.88 lakh is believed to be a gross underestimation. All of these are challenges, but for Kalki, the biggest is visibility. So little is known about gender identity, and so much is feared through tropes (no, transgender people do not go about kidnapping transgender children). 'Our education system does not teach us to empathise with people beyond religion, caste and borders,' she tells me on the phone from Chennai. And, so, we fear what we do not know. Perhaps because it's Pride Month, there has been greater space for transgender issues. On Amazon Prime, In Transit, directed by Ayesha Sood and produced by Zoya Akhtar and Reema Kagti documents the lives of transgender and non-binary people through questions of identity, love, acceptance and belonging. Like Kalki's book, it is a story of hope. Like the book, it gives the transgender community a voice — one that we need to hear.
Namita Bhandare writes on gender. The views expressed are personal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
BJP bringing up Katchatheevu issue to divert attention from Centre's failure to secure T.N. fishermen's rights: TNCC chief
Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (TNCC) president K. Selvaperunthagai on Saturday said the BJP was raking up the 50-year-old Katchatheevu issue to divert attention away from the Union government's failure to ensure Tamil fishermen don't face violence and harrassment from the Sri Lankan Navy. In a statement, Mr. Selvaperunthagai said External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar was trying to cover-up the actions of the Sri Lankan Navy against Tamil Nadu fishermen over the last 11 years of BJP rule at the Centre. He also clarified that Katchatheevu was not ceded to Sri Lanka during Emergency. 'The External Affairs Minister has made factually incorrect statements. Emergency was not in effect when the agreement [to cede the island] was signed on June 26, 1974. On July 23, 1974, the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh tabled a report in the Lok Sabha and addressed Parliament. All political parties, including the BJP, participated and voiced their opinions,' he said. 'After the Congress government, did Prime Minister Vajpayee, during his six-year tenure, or Prime Minister Modi, during his 11-year rule, ever hold talks with the Sri Lankan Prime Minister about reclaiming Katchatheevu? If Katchatheevu was truly the root cause of the fishermen's problems, the Indian government should have raised this with Sri Lanka,' Mr. Selvaperunthagai added. He said: 'Tamil Nadu fishermen are not arrested near Katchatheevu. Instead, they are arrested when they unintentionally cross the maritime boundary into Sri Lankan waters, especially during nighttime fishing. Therefore, the BJP government must hold talks with Sri Lanka to secure fishing rights in those waters based on the livelihoods of Tamil Nadu's fishermen.'
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
US Supreme Court curbs federal judges' power, handing Trump major victory on executive authority
The Supreme Court delivered a major victory to President Donald Trump on Friday, sharply limiting federal judges' authority to block presidential policies through nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that such sweeping orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority' granted to courts, calling them a 'conspicuously nonexistent' practice for most of US history. While the case stemmed from challenges to Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies of undocumented or temporary residents, the Court deliberately avoided ruling on the order's constitutionality. Instead, Barrett emphasized that courts cannot exercise 'general oversight of the Executive Branch,' effectively dismantling a key check on presidential power that had blocked dozens of Trump's policies. The immediate impact creates legal limbo for birthright citizenship: The policy could take effect in 28 non-challenging states after a 30-day window, potentially creating a 'patchwork' system where citizenship rules differ by state. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, read aloud in a rare display of protest, blasted the majority for enabling 'gamesmanship' and issuing 'an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution'. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly warned the ruling permits the executive to 'violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' concluding her dissent without the traditional 'respectfully' as a pointed rebuke. The Court suggested challengers pivot to class-action lawsuits, a path immigration advocates immediately pursued in Maryland and New Hampshire filings. Trump celebrated the decision as a 'monumental victory' against 'radical left judges,' while Attorney General Pam Bondi denounced 'rogue judges' who had issued 35 injunctions against Trump policies from just five districts. Legally, the ruling empowers Trump to revive stalled policies like transgender healthcare and refugee resettlement. However, constitutional scholars warn it risks 'chaotic' outcomes, including potential statelessness for newborns and conflicting state-level citizenship standards.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
