The very being, of being transgender

The shadow of criminalisation over an entire community should be totally rejected in a democracy. We need legal and social systems that actively dismantle discrimination, stigma, violence, and exclusion.

 By Suresh Nautiyal Greenananda

On 22 March 2026, the lawns of the Press Club of India in New Delhi witnessed not just a gathering, but an intense moment of existential assertion. Members of the transgender community came together to defend something more fundamental than rights—their very being.

Politicians such as Manoj Kumar Jha, John Brittas, Sandeep Dikshit, and Renuka Chowdhury lent their voices, but the deeper truth emerged from the lived realities of the community itself.

The proposed changes to the recent Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 brought by the BJP government, signal not merely a legal shift, but a moral retreat. By diluting the spirit of the landmark NALSA v. Union of India, these changes risk undoing a foundational principle: that identity is an inner truth, not an external certification.

Three interlinked dangers make this moment particularly grave. First, the narrowing of the definition of “transgender” is not a technical adjustment—it is an act of erasure. It excludes a wide spectrum of lived identities, pushing many back into invisibility and depriving them of access to education, healthcare, employment, and legal protection.

Second, the imposition of bureaucratic controls—mandatory reporting of gender-affirming procedures, intrusive verification, and layered certification—transforms human dignity into a procedure and autonomy into compliance. Identity, instead of being lived, becomes something to be approved of the authorities, in what is a democracy with individual fundamental rights  enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Third, the shadow of criminalisation looms large. Vague penal provisions risk being misused against families, doctors, educators, and allies, fracturing networks of care, and pushing the community further into isolation.

Equally troubling is the absence of meaningful consultation. Policies that shape lives cannot be crafted in isolation from those who live their everyday reality of life. The lack of dialogue reflects not only a gap in process, but a deeper absence of empathy and understanding.

Yet, beyond these immediate dangers lies a more profound crisis—a failure to understand the nature of human diversity itself. Any meaningful framework must emerge from a clear philosophical foundation: that gender is a social and lived construct, distinct from biological sex, and that the full spectrum of human identity must be recognised, respected, and protected. Without this foundation, law becomes blind and governance mechanical, incapable of responding to the subtleties of human existence.

The path forward, therefore, demands a just and sustainable society that must affirm that every individual—regardless of sexuality, gender identity, or intersex status—is entitled to dignity, equality, and full participation in public life. Difference must not be merely tolerated; it must be embraced as an essential dimension of human diversity and richness.

This calls for a comprehensive transformation: laws that guarantee equality and protect against discrimination; institutions that ensure equitable access to healthcare, education, and livelihood; and social systems that actively dismantle stigma, violence, and exclusion.

It requires recognition of diverse family structures, protection of children’s rights, and the creation of public spaces—both physical and cultural—that are inclusive and affirming.

Equally vital is the transformation of public consciousness. Education must cultivate respect for diversity; healthcare must be rooted in dignity, consent, and accessibility; and harmful practices such as conversion therapy and involuntary medical interventions must be unequivocally rejected.

The struggle is not only for legal reform, but for a deeper shift in how society understands identity, belonging, and humanity itself.

This vision must also extend beyond national boundaries—towards global solidarity, cultural affirmation, and the protection of those persecuted for who they are. For the question at stake is universal: can humanity accept itself in its full diversity?

What stands before us, therefore, is not merely a policy debate. It is a civilisational choice: a society that denies individuals the right to define their own identity diminishes its own moral horizon, or a society that affirms this right moves closer to justice—not as an abstraction, but as a lived reality.

---

Suresh Nautiyal is Contributing Editor, independentink.in

Photos by Suresh Nautiyal.