Listen to this article:

New Delhi: All his life, Aryan (name changed), 27, has suffered from gender dysphoria – anxiety caused by mismatch between assigned sex and gender identity. As a trans man, he had to run pillar to post to be able to land a suitable corporate job. 

“When I went for job interviews, I was often told to dress like ‘a woman’ or wear makeup. This would often worsen my dysphoria. It was only recently that I found a job where I could join as a trans man. Things were going well so far, at least I had the space to fight against discrimination, if need be. But now, things seem uncertain again,” he says.

Aryan is among thousands of transgender individuals in India who are distressed, not knowing what future holds for them now, with the contentious Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13 by Union minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar.

Twelve years ago, in a landmark judgement in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had recognised the transgender identity for the first time and laid down that “self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression”. 

This set the precedent for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

On October 17, last year, the top court reiterated this in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, awarding compensation to a transgender woman, while flagging the failure of the Union and state governments to implement existing legal protections for transgender persons.

Last week’s Bill, however, departs from this. It redefines what it means to be a “transgender person,” once again stripping them of the right to self-determination of their gender identity. 

The move has drawn protests, both online and offline, and has been heavily criticised by transgender and queer individuals, some of whom, speaking to The Wire, called it “derogatory” and “unconstitutional”. 

Members of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP) have also alleged that they were neither consulted nor informed about the Bill before it was introduced in parliament. “We didn’t know about it at all. The NCTP is supposed to advise the government on transgender matters, and we weren’t told formally or informally. It’s shocking,” says Rituparna Neog, a council member representing the northeastern region.

The Bill is scheduled to be taken up in Lok Sabha on Monday (March 23).

According to the Bill, the new definition for a transgender individual would be “a person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta, or eunuch,” or a person with specific “intersex variations,” or “a person who, at birth, has a congenital variation” in sex characteristics as compared to male or female development in their “primary sexual characteristics, external genitalia, chromosomal patterns, gondal development, endogenous hormone production or response or such other medical conditions”.

It adds that any person or child “who has been, by force, allurement, inducement, deceit or undue influence, either with or without consent, compelled to assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity, by mutilation, emasculation, castration, amputation, or any surgical, chemical, or hormonal procedure or otherwise” would also be included in the definition, but barring “persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.”

The rationale used by the government for exclusion is either biological or cultural, thus replacing........

© The Wire