A look at recent global actions limiting legal recognitions for transgender people
A ruling Wednesday from the top court in the United Kingdom that says the legal definition of a woman is someone whose birth sex is female is the latest high-profile action globally involving the issue of what legal recognitions transgender people are allowed. The spectrum of protections around the world ranges widely, from none at all in a number of countries to the existence of anti-discrimination protections and legal gender identity changes in some others.
Here's a look at actions in some countries recently:
United Kingdom
The decision from U.K. Supreme Court revolved around the U.K. Equality Act, which bars discrimination along protected categories including age, race and sex. The court's ruling said that for the purposes of the act, the definition of a woman is someone born biologically female, which excludes transgender people. The unanimous decision means trans women can be barred from places like women-only changing rooms and homeless shelters and kept from groups like those offering medical or counseling services only to women. But the ruling also said the decision didn't mean transgender people were without any legal protection, because the Equality Act also recognizes gender reassignment as a protected category.
Supporters of For Women Scotland, the group that brought the suit, celebrated the decision while advocates for transgender rights called it a setback.
Hungary
Rights for transgender people were restricted as part of a wider crackdown on LGBTQ communities in Hungary through an amendment to its constitution passed on April 14. The measure was proposed by the ruling coalition led by populist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and easily sailed through Hungary's parliament.
Under the new amendment, the nation's constitution says there are two sexes, male and female. A government spokesman called it 'a clarification that legal norms are based on biological reality.' It lays a constitutional groundwork for denying transgender people the ability to have their gender identities protected.
Critics of the amendment said it was about humiliating and excluding people, and part of the ruling party's moves toward authoritarianism. The amendment also banned any public events from LGBTQ communities, which Hungary's government has strongly campaigned against in recent years.
United States
President Donald Trump has made a ban on transgender participation in sports a central focus of his administration. On Wednesday, he sued the state of Maine for not following an executive order he signed that banned transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports.
In a February meeting with state governors, Trump called out Gov. Janet Mills for not complying with his order, and threatened to pull federal funding, to which Mills replied, 'We'll see you in court.'
The administration's lawsuit calls for Maine to be ordered to tell its schools that it's prohibited for males to participate in athletic competition designated for females.
Another of Trump's executive orders insists on a rigid definition of the sexes, rather than gender, for federal government purposes. The orders are facing court challenges. For its part, Maine sued the administration after the Department of Agriculture said it was pausing some money for the state's educational programs. A federal judge on Friday ordered the administration to unfreeze funds intended for a Maine child nutrition program.
It's not just on the federal level; the question of legal protections for transgender people is a political issue in many American states as well. In twenty-six states, transgender girls from are banned from girls school sports. Other issues around the country include access to gender-related health care for minors and bathroom access in public spaces like schools and government buildings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Americans don't see US supreme court as politically neutral, poll finds
Americans are divided on major issues that the US supreme court is due to rule on in the coming weeks, but most agree on one thing: neither Republicans nor Democrats see the nation's top judicial body as politically neutral, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Just 20% of respondents to the poll agreed that the supreme court is politically neutral while 58% disagreed – and the rest either said they did not know or did not respond. Among people who described themselves as Democrats, only 10% agreed it was politically neutral and 74% disagreed, while among Republicans 29% agreed and 54% disagreed. The two-day poll, which closed on Thursday, was based on responses from 1,136 US adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The court has issued major rulings in recent years including in cases rolling back abortion rights, expanding gun rights, recognizing presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts, rejecting race-conscious collegiate admissions and curbing the power of federal agencies. Its 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Donald Trump during his first presidency. In the poll, a minority of respondents – 44% – expressed a favorable view of the court, including 67% of Republicans and 26% of Democrats. The supreme court's popularity has declined since its June 2022 decision to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Fifty-seven per cent of respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted at the end of 2021 expressed a favorable opinion of the court. By the end of June 2022, that figure had fallen to 43%. The justices are expected to issue rulings in major cases in the coming weeks as they near the end of their current term that began in October. Among these cases are one on the legality of Tennessee's Republican-backed law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors and one involving Trump's executive order restricting automatic birthright citizenship, part of his hardline approach to immigration. Fifty-three per cent of respondents in the new poll said they supported 'laws that prevent transgender children under the age of 18 from getting medical treatment related to gender identity and gender transitioning'. Another 28% opposed such laws and the rest were unsure or did not answer the question. Among Republicans, support for such laws was at 57% and opposition at 28%, while among Democrats support was at 23% and opposition at 54%. During December arguments in the case, the court's conservative justices signaled their willingness to uphold the law. After Trump signed his birthright citizenship directive in January, 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants sued, arguing that it was a violation of citizenship language in the US constitution's 14th amendment. In the poll, only 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% – most – opposed Trump on the issue. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The court also by the end of June is expected to issue a ruling on the legality of a Texas law that requires people to verify their age online before accessing pornographic websites. The poll found strong support for such laws. Among all respondents, 70% were in support and 14% opposed. Among Democrats, 65% supported and 18% opposed, while among Republicans 80% supported and 7% opposed. During January arguments in the case, the justices seemed to agree that states can try to keep adult material from minors but also voiced concern over burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is the Israel-Iran conflict really the start of world war three?
It is a sobering fact that, as the leaders of most of the world's leading industrial powers and leading democracies – the G7 – meet in Canada, there is not much they can do or wish to do to end the Iran-Israel war. Partly, this is because the war – dramatic as the images are and real as the suffering of civilians is – has so far been confined to mutual aerial bombardments. They are a longer and more intense version of the strikes launched by the two nations in April and October – and may subside when Israel judges it is prudent to do so, though the IDF currently says it has full control of the skies over Tehran. Israel says strikes overnight in Haifa and Tel Aviv killed eight, while Tehran says fatalities have been in the hundreds. Still, it is not yet all-out war and there is no question of the Israelis deploying their nuclear weapon – and not much chance of the Americans engaging directly against Iranian territory or its forces. If Donald Trump wants some vengeance for the reportedly minor damage to the American embassy in Tel Aviv following overnight strikes in a residential area, then he can leave that to Benjamin Netanyahu (BiBi) to take care of. So, this may turn out to be the moment of maximum or peak danger, rather than a further escalation. It doesn't feel as if this is going to result in a third world war. If you take the view that the 7 October atrocities committed by Hamas were the equivalent destabilising, provocative moment as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in July 1914 – the spark that lit a global conflagration – then you would be tempted to view recent events as a long-running set of national revivals in a volatile region, which are about to draw in the great powers of our time. Rather like the Serbian terrorists then, Hamas would certainly welcome the interventions of other powers they traditionally regarded as allies – Iran and Russia – on their side, pitted against Israel and the United States. Hamas could not win a war against Israel on its own, but with Iran and Russia, perhaps it has a chance of advancing its objectives and weakening Israel. That was why BiBi's disproportionate reaction to the 7 October 2023 attacks seemed so ill-conceived – because it played into Hamas's hands. And, despite everything, the terrorist organisation has not been eliminated. Israeli war aims have not been achieved, but merely widened to embrace the humiliation of Iran, the end of its nuclear ambitions and, maybe, even the fall of the Islamic Republic. Conceivably, America and Russia could still be drawn in, and that might have happened under the Biden presidency. But under Donald Trump, and with the Iranians being revealed to be as weak as they are, the dynamics for such an escalation aren't quite right. Trump is so reluctant to do anything to get in the way of his strategic aim of partnership with Russia that he would only intervene if Israel were in immediate, mortal jeopardy. Similarly, Putin would only intervene if Iran – source of diplomatic and military support for the Ukraine campaign – was to be placed at risk, of course. Obviously, neither Israel nor Iran is about to fall, and Israel is doing more than anyone else ever has to disrupt Iran's journey to becoming a nuclear power. It's an uncomfortable fact, and it would have been far better all round if the Iranian nuclear deal had achieved the same ends, but when Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in his first term, Iran merely accelerated its efforts. Israel stopping the ayatollahs from acquiring weapons of mass destruction suits Trump well enough; and in this context, it is no great surprise that he has suggested Vladimir Putin broker a peace deal, or at least a ceasefire. For the time being, with a similar logic, there is also no obvious reason why Saudi Arabia or Turkey would seek to intervene in the conflict between Israel and Iran. So, this week, the G7 will issue another bland communiqué calling for de-escalation, which will make little impact in Israel or Iran, and the bombings will continue. As will the futile destruction of Gaza, and the Houthis may resume their low-level terrorism around the Strait of Hormuz, tempered by periodic American punishment bombings. This, however, is not stability, and things could still escalate – but it would need something dramatic to occur, such as the Russians and North Koreans gifting Iran a nuclear weapon and a missile delivery system to take it at least as far as Israel. Or America bombing Tehran or the holy sites. At such a point, we could again contemplate how the great powers and their satellites might line up in a total war. Not yet, though.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Morning Bid: Markets calm as Israel-Iran war rages
LONDON, June 16 (Reuters) - What matters in U.S. and global markets today I'm excited to announce that I'm now part of Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, an essential new source for data-driven, expert commentary on market and economic trends. You can find ROI on the Reuters website, opens new tab, and you can follow us on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab World markets were calm on Monday, even in the face of this weekend's escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict, as volatile oil prices fell slightly from Friday's 4-month peak. I'll discuss all of today's market-moving news below. Today's Market Minute * Iranian missiles struck Israel's Tel Aviv and the port city of Haifa before dawn on Monday, killing at least eight people and destroying homes, prompting Israel's defense minister to warn that Tehran residents would "pay the price and soon". * Iran has told mediators Qatar and Oman that it is not open to negotiating a ceasefire while it is under Israeli attack, an official briefed on the communications told Reuters on Sunday, as the two foes launched fresh attacks and raised fears of a wider conflict. * A two-day manhunt ended on Sunday with the arrest of a 57-year-old man for allegedly killing a Minnesota Democratic state lawmaker and her husband while posing as a police officer, Governor Tim Walz said. * U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is considering significantly expanding its travel restrictions by potentially banning citizens of 36 additional countries from entering the United States, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters. * When watching energy markets during times of heightened Middle East tensions, it can be helpful to look more at what is not happening, rather than fixating on the dramatic headlines. Read the latest from ROI columnist Clyde Russell. Markets calm despite Israel and Iran exchanging fire Israel began its military strikes with a surprise attack on Friday that targeted the top echelon of Iran's military command and damaged its nuclear sites. The move occurred after the United Nations nuclear watchdog declared for the first time in 20 years that Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. Iran has vowed retaliation and reiterating Tehran's official stance against developing nuclear weapons. Iran has always said its nuclear program is peaceful, although the Board of Governors of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency declared last week that Tehran was in violation of its non-proliferation obligations. Iran's foreign ministry and atomic energy organization said the findings were politically motivated and lacked technical or legal foundation. The attacks from both sides were far more extensive than the more limited exchanges between the two in recent years, but oil production and export facilities have largely been unaffected so far. Oil prices fell back after jumping about 7% to 4-month peaks on Friday, with U.S. crude slipping to $72.40 per barrel from last week's high of $77.62. Gold also retreated, having failed to breach April's record last week. U.S. Treasury yields held Friday's gains, but remain largely stuck in recent ranges as the Federal Reserve meets this week and prepares to release its quarterly economic forecasts. A 20-year bond auction will occur later today. Wall Street stock futures recovered some of Friday's losses before today's bell, and stocks in Asia and Europe rallied. Middle East bourses, however, continue to fall. Even as oil analysts and brokers put forward $100-plus forecasts on "worst-case" scenarios, crude remains down 8% year-on-year and still subdued historically, a critical factor for investors focused on the inflationary impact of any new oil shock. The last time crude topped $100 per barrel was after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but it sustained those heights for less than four months. Prior to that, you have to go back over a decade to see crude hit triple digits. A key question is whether the conflict will lead to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. About a fifth of the world's total oil consumption, or some 18 to 19 million barrels per day of oil, condensate and fuel, passes through the strait. The possibility of further escalation looms over a meeting of the Group of Seven leaders in Canada, with U.S. President Donald Trump expressing hope on Sunday that a deal could be done. But there is no sign of the fighting abating as we enter the fourth day of war. As an indication of how far the situation could spiral, two U.S. officials told Reuters that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While the G7 talks will likely center on the Middle East conflict, leaders will also discuss lowering the Russian oil cap, with European nations and some others expected to go ahead with the move and further sanctions on Moscow even if Trump objects. Beyond geopolitics, it's a week jammed with central bank meetings. There is the Fed, of course, which is not expected to move rates lower until September. The Bank of Japan started its two-day policy meeting today. The trade and geopolitical uncertainties are widely expected to keep the BOJ on hold too. Likewise, the Bank of England is expected to stand pat until August. Perhaps the most notable central bank meeting of this week will involve the Swiss National Bank, which is widely expected to move policy rates back to zero. The likelihood of a cut into negative territory has also risen amid fresh franc strength and domestic price deflation. The franc flirted with its strongest level in more than 10 years against the dollar last week, but held steady on Monday. Chart of the day China's new home prices fell in May, extending two years of stagnation, official data showed on Monday, highlighting challenges in the sector despite several rounds of policy support measures. New home prices fell 0.2% month-on-month in May after showing no growth the previous month. From a year earlier, prices fell 3.5% in May. The market entered a prolonged slump in 2021, with debt-laden developers struggling to deliver homes that buyers had already paid for, further denting consumer confidence and hitting the wider economy. Monetary and fiscal supports have been extensive. But even though major cities had shown tentative signs of recovery in recent months, they saw a relapse as well in May, snapping a streak of five consecutive monthly gains. Today's events to watch * New York Federal Reserve June manufacturing survey * G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta * European Central Bank board member Piero Cipollone and Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel speak * U.S. Treasury sells $13 billion of 20-year bonds * U.S. corporate earnings: Lennar Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, opens new tab, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. Want to receive the Morning Bid in your inbox every weekday morning? Sign up for the newsletter here.
