Indian court rules a transgender woman is a woman

[BeeSouriante]

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2025/06/25/indian-court-rules-a-transgender-woman-is-a-woman/

Deeply patriarchal society in “Gender stereotypes are what makes a woman” shocker. Well drop me bacon sandwich, indeed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-martial-rape-chhattisgarh-high-court-b2697006.html

See ladies, if we were more like India and didn't waste time on being gender critical we'd have more energy to sort out misogyny, harassment, child rape, gang rape, coercive control in marriage etc. This must be why India has sorted all these things.

Yep “Be More India” in terms of women’s rights is not what we’re aiming for.

@BeeSouriante But what do you think about the link you posted?

“Indian law cannot deny transgender women recognition as women solely because they cannot bear children”

But the UK doesn’t deny TW recognition as women because they can’t bear children. They deny TW recognition as women because they are men.
Surely we all know the answer to this? The TW who feel their rights are being trampled on can go and live in India?

Every arsehole supporting this outcome needs to watch the film Bhakshak on Netflix. They need to see some of what is actually done to natal women in India and how that society systemically covers it up. Then if they have any decency left at all, they should feel a deep sense of shame because if they can watch what happens to the girls in that film and STILL think they're right to support men forcing their way into being female in that specific country, there is no hope for them.

That headline makes no sense. It is a perfect example of how this ideology deliberately confuses people. Any rational person would think "of course it is unreasonable to deny a woman her womanhood because she is infertile". A far more accurate title would be 'Indian court rules a trans-identified male is a woman', and for the article to state 'Indian law cannot deny trans-identified males recognition as women solely because they cannot bear children'. But then everybody would see through the misogynistic idiocy.

India has always had trans people since I remember, it's been very normal and as far as I'm aware they're not intimidating to other woman. Maybe this is why it's different there. I remember going there at 7 in the late 80s and being confused at men wearing saris and bindis, no one batted an eyelid, had never seen anything similar in the UK. Similar with Pacific Island cultures, they're just an accepted and non threatening part of society.

India has recognised a “third gender” for millennia. This is simply putting it in law.

Correct. But they dont enter women's spaces. And are actually pretty marginalised in many ways. They are not the entitled Western TRAs.

Only 3 genders? Get with the times, India, there are far more than that.

What's next? Legally letting furries be known as cats/dogs/wolves?

I would love to see someone there go to court to demand they be legally a different age/race and refer to that case to build theirs. Maybe we can even get our CSE to identify as a masters degree. Oh what fun could be had!

I wonder if India would be so supportive of someone in the lowest caste identifying into a higher one? 🤔

'Third gender' societies created a space in which gay men ( largely) could exist with some degree of social acceptance. It is the same in Cambodia and Thailand with 'Ladyboys'. Ladyboys are usually involved in, and reliant on, prostitution and their existence provides a way for men to enjoy the spectacle of, and 'services' of other men.Being gay is still very much taboo in many countries.....and 'third genders' are the solution.

Yes. In religious texts, even.
It's a judgement very specific to the country. It has nothing to do with the Western understanding of transwomen. I.e men.
I don't agree with the judgement. But I can understand it.

This.

This is why we Brits have a more realistic take.

I also wonder how many Indian women are allowed to be butch lesbians if they so please.

I agree, it's quite ignorant to try and compare to the UK and the issues there.

India has nearly 60% reservations in education, jobs and elected bodies for lower castes. Or as they are properly called: scheduled castes or Dalits.

That's because they occupy a specific place and role in those societies. Societies in which homosexuality is either illegal, or where it is a strict taboo. Even gay men are expected to marry women. The Hijra in India rely on charity and prostitution to survive, and they are certainly not seen as actual women.

Oh look a misogynistic country acts in a misogynistic way.

But the judgement doesn't recognise this person as a third gender, it recognises them as a woman

This was posted in a separate thread yesterday. About 20 mins in Helen Joyce explains that the ‘third’ gender that exists in non Western societies recognises that a person can only opt out of privilege, not into privilege. So ‘third’ gender does intrude on sex based rights. It recognises an intention to opt out of a political ideology.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AEH63BVAjv0&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD

“Indian law cannot deny transgender women recognition as women solely because they cannot bear children”

And that, is biological essentialism (not saying that only women can have children, but saying that women are women because they have children)..

Implicit in that explanation is the assumption that bearing children is what makes a woman a woman (unless they are a trans identified male)

So utterly sexist.

I sometimes wonder whether the later a country encounters these ultraliberal ideas, the fewer defences it has against them when they do get pushed, and it ends up piling in 100%. It’s like they haven’t had time to build up an immune system against naivety.

That’s not a scientific theory obviously, it’s mostly based around wondering why Ireland seems to commit to everything modern while the UK resists at least a bit, despite Ireland being the more traditional place until very recently.