Many countries in the Southeast Asian region are incrementally shifting on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people’s rights:

• Vietnam’s Minster of Justice said publicly that rights of same-sex married couples should be recognized.
• The Philippines Supreme Court has ruled that an LGBT party had the right to participate in national elections.
• A Singapore Appeals Court ruled that the constitutionality of Section 377A of its Penal Code needs to be examined because it discriminates against gay men.
• Thailand has long been known as the place to go for gender reassignment surgery.
• Indonesia’ s Parliament will soon decide whether to appoint the first openly gay man as commissioner on its National Human Rights Commission.

The Malaysian government however continues to stubbornly reject the rights of LGBT people. This position reverberates throughout state institutions, encouraging hostility, discrimination, and abuse by state and religious authorities.

In October, Judge Siti Mariah Ahmad, of the high court of Seremban in Negeri Sembilan, one of Malaysia’s thirteen states, struck down a first-ever constitutional challenge brought by four Malay transwomen who sought the court’s protection for being unfairly targeted by Article 66 of the Negeri Sembilan sharia law.

Mohammad Juzaili Mohammad Khamis (24), Shukor Jani (25), Wan Fairol Wan Ismail (27), and Adam Shazrul Mohammad Yusoff (25) work as bridal makeup artists, and identify and dress as women. In August 2012, they applied for judicial review of Article 66, which criminalizes men “who dress in women’s clothes and behave like women in public.” They claimed that it violated their rights under Articles 5, 8, 9, 10 and 4 of the Malaysian federal constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, nondiscrimination, freedom of movement, freedom to express one’s identity, and supersedes any local state law that challenges the federal constitution.

Their lawyer argued that Article 66 was unconstitutional because it penalized individuals for “an attribute of their nature that they did not choose and cannot change.”

Judge Siti Mariah, who heard the arguments in the judicial review, disagreed. In her decision, she said, “The undisputed facts are that the applicants are born as males, they are male to female transsexuals, and the evidence of the psychiatrist is that they have jiwa wanita (soul of a woman)… Section 66 is part of the teaching of Islam and the applicants are Muslims. They cannot be exempted from it.”

PT Foundation, an HIV/AIDS organization in Malaysia, reports there are 10,000 mak nyahs (the local term for male transsexuals), in the country. Seventy to eighty percent of mak nyahs are Malay and Muslim while the remaining twenty percent are minority ethnicities. Most mak nyahs do not have gender reassignment surgery because it’s too costly and requires travel outside the country. They fear too that their families will not carry out the Muslim burial rites if they are not viewed as a man or a woman.

Malaysian rights advocate, Thilaga, working in the Justice for Sisters campaign for the rights of mak nyah, says, “Transgender people don’t report violations by police or religious officers because they don’t expect justice. Often, they don’t know their rights and lack resources to go to court to fight charges.” The four applicants in the Negeri Sembilan case attest to this. Mohammad Juzaili was detained four times in 2010, charged three times, convicted twice and fined 1700 Malaysian ringgit ($550 US); Adam Shazrul was arrested twice, convicted once, and fined 800 ringgit ($260 US); Shukor Jaini and Wan Fairol were each detained twice.

Muslim mak nyahs can face up to six months in prison from Malaysian sharia courts.  They are sometimes forced to attend Islamic religious classes where they are pressured to reform and give verbal assurances that they will stop being trans. They are particularly vulnerable to routine arrest and penalized by police and Islamic religious officers who verbally humiliate, physically and sexually abuse them while in custody.

Non-Muslim mak nyahs, while not subject to sharia laws, can be arrested and convicted for “disorderly or indecent behavior,” with penalties ranging from 25 to 100 ringgit ($10- $30 US) and two weeks to three months in prison.

During the August hearing, Judge Siti Mariah, visibly disturbed by reports of custodial abuse of the applicants, questioned the representatives of the state department and Islamic Affairs department about the way the applicants were treated. She also questioned the definition of public space, saying, “the moment they step out of their house, it’s public space,” suggesting that religious officers were using sharia law to target the mak nyah community. She questioned if Article 66 applied to the applicants “because they are not men, neither women.”

In her decision last week, Judge Siti Mariah remarked, “The Islamic Religious Department needs to be ‘lebih berhemat’ (more professional),” instructing the Department to work with PT Foundation “to give counseling to transsexuals.”

If we are to better protect the human rights of LGBT people in Malaysia, a far more explicit warning must come from the courts. The Negeri Sembilan Islamic Religious Department should be charged to investigate, prosecute and convict its own religious officers for acts of verbal, physical, mental and sexual abuse against those in their custody, for supposedly breaking morality laws.

Sharia judges across Malaysia must hold accountable Islamic religious officers (and police officers subject to sharia courts) who misuse their authority, take advantage of people’s vulnerabilities, humiliate them, and mistreat with impunity those they are hired to protect—including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

For more on mak nyah experiences, see Nisha Ayub’s presentation (pdf) at the International Gay and Lesbian Human rights Commission panel at the 2012 Creating Change conference.

Grace Poore, the author, can be reached at gpoore@iglhrc.org

To read the original article in English, visit: Chilean Paradoxes: LGBT rights in Latin America 

Durante los últimos años ha habido avances importantes en materia de derechos humanos para la población gay, lesbiana, bisexual y transexual (LGBT) de América Latina. El reconocimiento de uniones civiles para parejas del mismo sexo en Brasil y en Uruguay, matrimonio homosexual en la Ciudad de México y en Argentina, y leyes que protegen la identidad de género en Bolivia, Chile y Argentina. Estos cambios ponen en duda viejos estereotipos que califican al subcontinente como una región conservadora, machista, y dominada por la moral de la iglesia católica.

La lucha por los derechos humanos LGBT en América Latina no es un camino de un solo sentido. Existen paradojas dentro de los Estados y entre las naciones. El año en que la Ciudad de México legalizó el matrimonio para parejas del mismo sexo, únicamente el 29% de la población de la ciudad apoyaba el derecho de estas parejas a adoptar. En Ecuador, la Constitución prohíbe explícitamente la discriminación por motivos de orientación sexual, pero también rechaza textualmente el matrimonio y la adopción por parejas del mismo sexo. EL matrimonio gay es legal en algunos casos en Brasil, pero la población transgénero sigue siendo víctima sistemática de violentos crímenes de odio. En el 2009, Brasil reportó el mayor número de asesinatos a personas transgénero del continente. En Costa Rica el diputado evangélico Justo Orozco, quien ha afirmado que la orientación sexual es un pecado y debe tratarse, es también presidente de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos.

Chile es una gran ilustración de estas paradojas latinoamericanas. Cuando Michele Bachelet, mujer socialista, asumió la presidencia en el 2006, grupos LGBT vieron una oportunidad para hacer avanzar sus derechos en un país de un conservadurismo rígido. Irónicamente, la mayor parte del debate y legislación sobre temas LGBT tuvo que esperar hasta la presidencia actual de Sebastián Piñera, el primer presidente de derecha desde la época de Pinochet.

Durante estos últimos meses, tres temas LGBT han recibido gran atención de la población chilena: una ley antidiscriminación, impulsada por una condena al Estado chileno de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) y el asesinato del joven homosexual Daniel Zamudio; un proyecto de ley para permitir las uniones civiles pero prohibir el matrimonio a parejas del mismo sexo a nivel constitucional; así como el anuncio de que el Fondo Nacional de Salud chileno, el Fonasa, costeará cirugías de cambio de sexo a personas transgénero.

El camino hacia una ley antidiscriminación eficiente

El proyecto de ley antidiscriminación, introducido al Congreso chileno desde el 2005, permaneció estancado en la Cámara de Diputados por casi 7 años. No fue hasta marzo del 2012, poco después del asesinato de Daniel Zamudio, que asociaciones LGBT en conjunto con organizaciones internacionales presionaron por sacarlo adelante. Contribuyendo a la presión al gobierno, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos falló a favor de la jueza Karen Atala, quien en 2005 había perdido la tuición de sus hijas debido a su homosexualidad, y reconoció la violación a sus derechos de igualdad por parte del Estado chileno.

La Constitución chilena reconoce el derecho de igualdad ante la ley bajo los Artículos 1º y 19º, pero distintos grupos afectados denunciaban la falta de mecanismos para reconocer y hacer válido el principio de la no discriminación.

El “Proyecto de ley que establece medidas contra la discriminación” pretendía prohibir la “discriminación arbitraria”, e incluía la identidad de genero y la orientación sexual como categorías protegidas contra la discriminación. Las categorías contempladas en el concepto de discriminación arbitraria son: raza o etnia, nacionalidad, situación socioeconómica, idioma, ideología u opinión política, religión o creencia, sindicación o participación en organizaciones gremiales o la falta de ellas, sexo, orientación sexual, identidad de género, estado civil, edad, filiación, apariencia personal y enfermedad o discapacidad.

El 30 de abril del 2012, una Comisión Mixta revisó el proyecto y aprobó un texto que el Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual (Movilh) consideró como un salto cualitativo, aunque reconoció que la norma “no es en todos sus puntos la que queríamos”. La Comisión Mixta aprobó el involucrar al Estado en acciones contra la discriminación, lo que habría de dar un aspecto preventivo a la ley. Además, eliminó un ejemplo en el Artículo 2º que asociaba directamente la diversidad sexual con los crímenes sexuales. La identidad de género y la orientación sexual también fueron incluidos en una modificación al Código Penal que los considera como agravantes en cargos de discriminación.

La Cámara de Diputados aprobó el informe de la Comisión Mixta por 90 votos a favor, 16 en contra y 3 abstenciones el 8 de mayo del 2012. El Senado lo aprobó con 25 votos a favor, tres rechazos y tres abstenciones. El Movilh, la Fundación Iguales y otras organizaciones LGBT celebraron el proyecto.

Existieron también voces críticas al texto aprobado. Para Karen Atala, parte del consejo consultivo de la Fundación Iguales, la ley “no aporta más de lo existente en la legislación chilena, salvo agregar orientación sexual e identidad de género, pero constituye una espada de doble filo al relativizar los DDHH de 1ª generación y no cuenta con acciones afirmativas que era lo esperable para significar un verdadero cambio en aras de construir un Estado democrático e inclusivo”. Tras la promulgación de la ley, la Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad (OTD) emitió un comunicado de prensa denunciando la falta de acciones concretas y acción afirmativa de la ley.

La mayor limitante y una de las críticas más fuertes a la ley, es que su Artículo 2º permite casos de discriminación si otros principios fundamentales son evocados, como la libertad de consciencia, la libertad de enseñanza o la libertad de opinión.

El Presidente Piñera firmó la promulgación de la Ley Antidiscriminación el 12 de julio del 2012. El mismo día, el Movimiento por la Diversidad Sexual MUMS Chile, publicó en su cuenta de Twitter: “Fuerte y claro, No tenemos Ni que Agradecer , Ni aplaudir a los políticos por una Ley Mediocre. Vamos a protestar !!!”.

Sí a las uniones civiles, no al matrimonio homosexual

El proyecto de Piñera para uniones civiles

En mayo del 2011, el presidente Piñera recomendó al Congreso chileno pasar legislación para “proteger y salvaguardar” los derechos de las parejas de hecho – tanto heterosexuales como homosexuales. Esta medida fue una de las propuestas clave en la campaña de Piñera a la presidencia y causó gran debate en el país. Piñera reconoció que existen otras formas de relación que son efectivas y que el Estado está obligado a reconocerlas, protegerlas y respetarlas.

El proyecto, llamado Acuerdo de Vida en Pareja (AVP) daría a las parejas homosexuales y a las heterosexuales fuera del matrimonio, los mismo derechos de herencia y algunos otros beneficios sociales y de seguridad social. Sin embargo, varios activistas acusan al proyecto de querer formar un estatus de segunda categoría para las parejas que no sean matrimonios heterosexuales.

Tras la promulgación de la ley antidiscriminación, el ministro Andrés Chadwick pidió reactivar el debate. Sin embargo, el proyecto de AVP no ha sido aprobado y su debate sigue pendiente.

La reforma de la UDI para prohibir el matrimonio del mismo sexo

Sebastián Piñera ha sido claro en el hecho de que el AVP no cambia su concepto de matrimonio: “el matrimonio debe ser entre un hombre y una mujer, que se casan para compartir un proyecto de vida, para generar una nueva familia, para recibir los hijos que Dios nos mande”.

Tan solo dos días después de que el Presidente mandara su proyecto de ley para el AVP al Congreso, miembros de la Unión Demócrata Independiente (UDI), uno de los dos grandes partidos de derecha chilenos, presentó ante la Cámara Alta una reforma constitucional que busca establecer que el matrimonio sólo pueda ser contraído entre un hombre y una mujer.

La reforma incorporaría en el primer artículo de la Constitución chilena que: “En garantía y protección de la familia, sólo un hombre y una mujer, tienen el derecho para contraer el matrimonio”. Quienes apoyan la ley aseguran que la reforma es necesaria para reducir el miedo de conservadores que consideran el AVP como un preludio a la legalización del matrimonio homosexual en Chile.

El avance del Movilh frente a los tribunales

En enero del 2011, en una situación sin precedentes, el Tribunal Constitucional de Chile aceptó recibir los alegatos de 3 parejas homosexuales que solicitaron al Estado modificar su legislación, tras un recurso de protección presentado por haber sido impedidas de casarse en el Registro Civil. Este caso es parte de una estrategia del Movilh, para desafiar la constitucionalidad del Artículo 102 del Código Civil, que define el matrimonio como la unión de un hombre y una mujer.

En noviembre del 2011, el Tribunal Constitucional rechazó los argumentos como “inaplicables”. La votación fue de 9 contra uno, pues solo juez opinó a favor de una definición de matrimonio más incluyente. Los otros 9 jueces estuvieron divididos en tres corrientes: La corriente más estricta que consideró que el matrimonio entre dos personas del mismo sexo es inconstitucional. Otros tres jueces declararon que la decisión del Registro Civil estaba de acuerdo con la ley y que no había espacio para apelaciones. El último grupo también rechazó la apelación, pero hizo un llamado a enviar proyectos al Congreso para legislar sobre el tema.

El caso también fue rechazado por la Corte de Apelaciones de Santiago, que invocó “la imposibilidad de las parejas del mismo sexo de procrear” y se planteó que la “homosexualidad es causal del divorcio”. El Movilh llevó el caso a la Suprema Corte en diciembre del 2011, pero el recurso también fue rechazado . La Corte alegó que “el control de la constitucionalidad de las leyes corresponde al Tribunal Constitucional, y en esas condiciones no es factible que esta Corte por medio de la presente sentencia desentrañe si el artículo 102 del Código Civil se encuentra conforme o disconforme con las normas constitucionales”.

En abril del 2012, el Movilh anunció que denunciaría al Estado chileno ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.

Identidad de género y cirugías de cambio de sexo

El 24 de mayo del 2012, el Ministro de Salud chileno, Jaime Mañalich, anunció que a partir del 2013, hospitales públicos ofrecerían cirugías de cambio de sexo a través del Fondo Nacional de Salud chileno (Fonasa).

Los ciudadanos más pobres podrían acceder a las cirugías de forma gratuita, y el costo de las operaciones dependería del ingreso del paciente. Beneficios incluirían atención psiquiátrica, endocrinología y cirugía para quienes quisieran “recuperar su verdadera identidad sexual”, en palabras de Mañalich. Los procedimientos se harían en hospitales en Santiago, Concepción y Valparaíso.

El anuncio ha desatado controversia, incluso dentro de grupos de activistas LGBT. Miembros de la organización OTD opinaron que la forma de anunciar el plan fue torpe y que podría  tener un impacto negativo en la imagen nacional de la población transgénero.

El diputado y vicepresidente de la UDI, Felipe Salaberry, cuestionó los anuncios del ministro Jaime Mañalich, y afirmó que “la salud chilena clama cambios y modificaciones aún más urgentes”. La presidenta de Afrodita , el sindicato de transgéneros de Valparaíso, Zuliana Araya, afirmó estar contenta de que el gobierno esté “abriendo los ojos”, pero está en desacuerdo con la inclusión de un psicólogo o psiquiatra el procedimiento.

Actualmente, no existe una ley específica que permita el cambio legal de nombre o de sexo para personas transexuales. La decisión debe ser sustentada y apoyada por un equipo médico y documentos legales, y la decisión queda en manos de los tribunales, quienes pueden cambiar únicamente el nombre legal, el sexo, o ambos. Existen dos proyectos de ley sobre identidad de género en el Congreso. El primero fue introducido en el 2008 por María Antonieta Saa, y el segundo por el senador Alejandro Navarro en el 2012, con el objetivo de permitir a hombres y mujeres trans cambiar de nombre legal sin tener que ser sometidos a cirugías de reasignación sexual.

Recursos y bibliografía

Trans Respect Transphobia, “TDOR 2010”, http://www.transrespect-transphobia.org/en_US/tvt-project/tmm-results/tdor2010.htm, March 22, 2012

Rachel Glickhouse and Mark Keller, “Explainer: LGBT Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean”, Americas Society Council of the Americas, http://www.as-coa.org/article.php?id=4188, May 24, 2012

El Paradiario, “Presidente del Movilh: ‘Michelle Bachelet ha sido cobarde políticamente’”, El Paradiario 14 (Chile), http://www.elparadiario14.cl/admin/render/noticia/17021, June 2, 2009

Oliver Balch, “The Bachelet factor: the cultural legacy of Chile’s first female president”, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/13/michelle-bachelet-chile-president-legacy, December 13, 2009.

Kimberly Gonzalez, “Civil Marriage and Gay Union Law in the Americas”, http://studentorgs.law.smu.edu/getattachment/International-Law-Review-Association/Resources/LBRA-Archive/16-2/SMB206.pdf.aspx, July 13, 2010.

El Mostrador, “Rolando Jiménez: ‘El de Bachelet fue el peor gobierno para nostoros’, El Mostrador Chile, http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/2012/03/28/rolando-jimenez-presidente-del-movilh-“el-gobierno-de-bachelet-fue-el-peor-gobierno-para-nosotros”/, March 28, 2012.

Abigail Olmstead, “51 percent of Chileans want Bachelet back, poll says”,  The Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/chile/politics/23804-51-percent-of-chileans-want-bachelet-back-poll-says, May 11, 2012.

Biobiochile“Movilh: Bachelet pese a ser socialista, agnóstica y mujer no avanzó nada en diversidad sexual”, Biobiochile.cl, http://www.biobiochile.cl/2011/05/23/movilh-bachelet-pese-a-ser-socialista-agnostica-y-mujer-no-avanzo-nada-en-diversidad-sexual.shtml, May 23, 2012.

Informe 21, “’Piñera ha dado una lección de coraje a Bachelet’ dice colectivo homosexual”, Informe 21, http://informe21.com/sebastian-pinera/pinera-ha-dado-leccion-coraje-bachelet-dice-colectivo-homosexual, June 6, 2012

Rolando Jiménez, “La Mirada del MOvilh al proyecto de Ley Antidiscriminación (video)”, CNN Chile, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXHlZG_2ajQ, novembre 2011.

Andrea Cibotti, “Chilean Senate approves extensive anti-discrimination law”, I Love Chile, http://ilovechile.cl/2011/11/09/chilean-senate-approves-extensive-antidiscrimination-law/38603, November 9, 2011.

Movilh, “Senado aprueba Proyecto de Ley que eEstablece Medidas contra la Discriminación”, Movimiento de INtegración y Liberación Homosexual, http://www.movilh.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1227&Itemid=1, November 9, 2011

HRW, “Chile: Amend and Pass Anti-discrimination Bill”, Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/09/chile-amend-and-pass-anti-discrimination-bill, April 9, 2012.

Movilh, “COmisión Mixta aprueva Ley Antidiscriminación y la déjà lista para ser votada”, Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual, http://www.movilh.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1343&Itemid=1, May 4, 2012.

Eva Vergara, “Chile approves Hate Crime Law After Gay Bashing Death of Daniel Zamudio”, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/chile-hate-crime-law-daniel-zamudio_n_1506362.html, May 9^th, 2012.

Aaron Nelsen, “Chile’s Matthew Shepard Case: How a Brutal Murder Changed the Country’s Mind about Gay Rights”, Time World, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2116433,00.html?xid=gonewsedit, June 4, 2012.

Jonny Payne, “Chile set to allow gay civil unions”, Pink Paper, http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/5427/29/05/2011/chile-set-to-allow-gay-civil-unions-.aspx, May 29, 2011

AFP, “Chile President Sebastian Pinera proposes civil unions”, BBC UK, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14469625, August 9, 2011

Maureen Cosgrove, “Chile president introduces civil union legislation”, Jurist, http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/08/chile-president-introduces-civil-union-legislation.php, August 10, 2011

On Top Magazine, “Chile introduces Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban Amendment”, On Top Magazine, http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=9184&MediaType=1&Category=24, August 11, 2011.

LezGetReal, “Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal Set to Reject Same-Sex Marriage Case”, LezGet Real, http://lezgetreal.com/2011/10/chiles-constitutional-tribunal-set-to-reject-same-sex-marriage-case/, October 31, 2012.

Purple Unions, “Chile Constitutional Tribune to vote 9-1 Against Marriage Equality”, Purple Unions, http://purpleunions.com/blog/tag/chile, November 1^st 2011

Nación.cl, “Matrimonio homosexual: Movilh acude a la corte suprema”, La Nación, http://www.lanacion.cl/matrimonio-homosexual-movilh-acude-a-la-corte-suprema/noticias/2011-12-14/171616.html, December 14, 2011.

The Gay Report, “RULING: Chilean Supreme Court Rules Against Gay Marriage”, The Gay Report, http://www.thegayreport.net/2012/04/ruling-chilean-supreme-court-rules.html, April 5, 2012.

Nación.cl, “Movilh Denunciará al Estado de Chile ante la CIDH”, La Nación, http://www.lanacion.cl/movilh-denunciara-al-estado-de-chile-ante-la-cidh/noticias/2012-04-05/175140.html, April 5, 2012

Factor Absoluto, “El Empolvado proyecto de Acuerdo de Vida en Pareja”, Factor Absoluto, http://www.factorabsoluto.cl/el-empolvado-proyecto-de-acuerdo-de-vida-en-pareja-avp, April 15, 2012.

Patricia Schüller, “Mañalich anuncia que Fonasa ofrecerá prestaciones de salud a transexuales”, La Nación, http://www.lanacion.cl/manalich-anuncia-que-fonasa-ofrecera-prestaciones-de-salud-a-transexuales/noticias/2012-05-24/165351.html, 24 de mayo de 2012.

AFP, “Chile to cover sex change operation”, AFP, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-eUQAVOf1IwN8URwN-6VcwNVgWA?docId=CNG.eae23f2ab8f30139dd842abfb1c0998f.1f1, 25 de mayo de 2012.

Emol, “Salaberry (UDI) ‘Financiamiento a cirugías de cambio de sexo pueden esperar’”, Emol, http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2012/05/28/542809/salaberry-udi-financiamiento-a-cirugias-de-cambio-de-sexo-pueden-esperar2.html, 28 de mayo de 2012.

Nadia Flores, “Presidenta de transgéneros opina sobre inclusión de cirugías de cambio de sexo a la salud pública”, Biobiochile, http://www.biobiochile.cl/2012/05/30/presidenta-de-transgeneros-opina-sobre-inclusion-de-cirugias-de-cambio-de-sexo-a-la-salud-publica.shtml, 30 de mayo de 2012.

Charles Poladian, “Chile to Foot the Bill for Sex Change Operations”, Medical Daily, http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120525/10036/chile-sex-change-operation-public-health.htm, May 25 2012.

Jillian Page, “Chile Doing the Right Things”, The Montreal Gazette Blogs, http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/05/26/chile-doing-the-right-things/, May 26, 2012

Movilh, “Legislación: Leyes y Proyectos”, Movimiento de Integración y LIberación Homosexual, http://www.movilh.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=492&Itemid=12#legislacion, accessed on June 6, 2012

Andrés Rivera Duarte, “Informe sobre Chile: Violación a los DDHH de Personas Transexuales, Quinta Ronda del Examen Periódico Universal ONU”, Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CH0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indh.cl%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FEPU-OTD.pdf&ei=pmvPT8fyEoS_6AH63-WoDA&usg=AFQjCNHQN5hRH4-c-FkA6w4vP5x2DfpUNA&sig2=Es_qK46pJg_TsApUQp4XOg, March 20, 2012

Para leer este artículo en español, mira: Paradojas Chilenas: Derechos LGBT en América Latina 

Over the past few years, there have been important milestones advancing LGBT human rights in Latin America. Recognition of civil unions in Brazil and Uruguay, same-sex marriage in Mexico City and Argentina, laws protecting gender identity in Chile and Bolivia, and historic, progressive legislation in regard to gender identity in Argentina. These advances question old stereotypes of the region as a conservative macho culture dominated by the morals of the Roman Catholic Church.

The fight for LGBT human rights in Latin America isn’t a one-way street. Paradoxes arise among and between countries.  When Mexico City legalized same-sex marriage by legislative action, only 29% of the city’s population supported the right to adoption by same sex partners. In Ecuador, the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation yet bans same-sex marriage and adoption. Gay marriage is legal on a case-by-case basis in Brazil but transgender people continue to be the target of violent crime. In 2009, Brazil reported the highest number of murders of transgender people for the region. In Costa Rica, the president of the Legislative Assembly’s Human Rights Commission expressed his belief that sexual orientation is a sin that can be treated. Clearly, homophobia and transphobia are widespread in the region.

Chile:  World of Latin American paradoxes.

When the Chilean socialist president Michele Bachelet took office in 2006, LGBT groups saw an opportunity for advancing their rights in a country with rigid cultural conservatism. Ironically, most of the debate and legislation about LGBT issues had to wait until Sebastián Piñera, Chile’s first right-wing president since Pinochet left   office.

Three issues have received particular attention from the Chilean population: An anti-discrimination law, prompted by a ruling in the Karen Atala custody case condemning Chile by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the homophobic murder of Chilean youth Daniel Zamudio, a bill for same-sex civil unions  and  ban on same-sex marriage,  and , an   announced health coverage of sex reassignment surgeries by the country’s public health plan.

A  Quest for a Comprehensive Anti-discrimination Law 

An anti-discrimination bill in Chile, introduced in 2005, had been languishing in Chile’s Chamber of Deputies for almost seven years.  It wasn’t until March 2012, shortly after the brutal killing of Daniel Zamudio, that LGBT associations along with international organizations called for the prompt passage of the law. Putting more pressure on the government, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of Karen Atala, a Chilean judge who in 2005 had been denied custody of her children by the Supreme Court solely because she was living in a lesbian relationship.

The Chilean Constitution acknowledges equality but the principle of non-discrimination had not been specified nor included in any  type of prohibited conducts.  The “bill that establishes measures against discrimination” aimed to ban “arbitrary discrimination”, and includes  gender identity and sexual orientation as categories protected against discrimination.

In April 2012, a Joint Committee reviewed the bill and although the law was “not what we wanted in every point”, the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation, (Movilh,) declared their support of the text. Concretely, the Joint Committee approved involving the State in actions against discrimination, giving   a preventive dimension to the bill.  Both houses of the government approved the bill with large margins.  Movilh, Iguales Foundation, and other LGBT organizations celebrated the bill.

However, there is still criticism towards the law:  some members of the board of the Iguales Foundation consider it a “hybrid of principles” already stated in the Constitution. The Organization of Transsexuals for the Dignity of Diversity (OTD) denounced the lack of concrete actions and the exclusion of affirmative action in the antidiscrimination law. A major critique is that it allows discrimination if other fundamental principles are evoked, such as academic freedom or freedom of religion.

When President Piñera signed the law on July 12, 2012. MUMS Chile, the Movement for Sexual Diversity, tweeted: “Strong and Clear, we don’t have to thank or applaud politicians for a mediocre law. Let’s protest!”

Civil Unions Yes, Gay Marriage No

The President’s Bill for Civil Unions: In May 2011, president Sebastián Piñera advised Congress to pass legislation to “protect and safeguard the rights of unmarried couples, whether of the opposite or the same sex”.  The measure was a key proposal in Piñera’s presidential campaign manifesto and caused heated debate. He acknowledged that other forms of relationships are effective and that the State is obligated to recognize, protect and respect those partnerships.

The bill, entitled Acuerdo de Vida en Pareja (AVP) would give homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples the same inheritance and certain social welfare and health care benefits as married partners. However, many activists claim the bill maintains privileged status for heterosexual married couples.  The bill is pending for debate at the parliament.

The Independent Democrat Union’s Move to Ban Same-sex Marriage: Mr. Piñera has been clear on the fact that his initiative does not change the concept of marriage, saying, “I deeply believe that marriage is by nature between a man and a woman”. Only two days after Piñera sent the bill to Congress, members of Chile’s Independent Democrat Union (UDI, conservative) introduced a constitutional amendment seeking to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The amendment would add to the Chilean Constitution “in guaranteeing and protecting the family, only one man and one woman have the right to marry”. Supporters insist the amendment is necessary to soothe fears that the AVP is a prelude to the legalization of gay marriage in Chile.

Movilh’s Push for Legislation: In January 2011, in an unprecedented move, Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal agreed to hear a case involving three same-sex couples challenging the decision of a Civil Registry official who refused to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples and recognize a marriage celebrated outside Chile. The case is part of a push by Movilh to challenge the constitutionality of the Civil Code, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

In November 2011, Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal rejected the arguments as “inapplicable”. The vote came down 9 to 1. Only one judge stood for a broader definition of marriage, the other nine were divided among three camps: The strictest holds that marriage between two people of the same sex is unconstitutional. Three others ruled that the official’s decision was in accordance with the law and there was no room for appeal. The last opinion rejected the appeal but called for legislation to be sent to Congress concerning the issue.

The case was also rejected by a local court in Santiago on the grounds of the “impossibility of gay couples to procreate” and because “homosexual conduct is a cause for divorce”. Movilh took the case to the Supreme Court in December 2011, but was also turned down. The Court ruled, “control of the constitutionality of laws belongs to the Constitutional Court It is not feasible for this court to unravel whether Article 102 of the Civil Code conforms with constitutional norms”.

In April 2012, Movilh announced that it would denounce the Chilean State to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Gender Identity

In May 2012, the Health Minister of Chile, Jaime Mañalich, announced that starting in 2013, public hospitals would offer sex reassignment surgeries covered under the country’s public health plan, the Fonasa (National Health Fund).

The cost of the operations will depend on the patient’s income bracket with the poorest citizens able to get sex reassignment surgeries for free, Benefits will include psychiatric therapy, endocrinology and surgery for people wanting to “recover their true sexual identity,” according to Mañalich. The procedures will be performed in public hospitals in Santiago, Concepción and Valparaíso.

The announcement has sparked controversy. Members of the trans organization OTD are worried that the announcement could have negative impact on the country’s image of transgender people. Felipe Salaberry, member of the conservative political party UDI (Independent Democratic Union) criticized the announcement, arguing that there are “more urgent changes and modifications” that need to be addressed. The president of Afrodita, the Transgender Union of Valparaíso, Zuliana Araya, is glad that the government is “opening its eyes” but disagrees with the inclusion of a psychologist or psychiatrist in the procedure.

Currently, there is no specific law that would allow legal name and sex reassignment for transgender people. The decision must be backed up by medical and legal documents and is left entirely up to the Tribunals; there are currently two bills in Congress that address gender identity (Proyectos de ley sobre identidad de género). The first one was introduced in 2008 by representative María Antonieta Saa; the second by senator Alejandro Navarro in 2012, with the aim of   allowing transgender men and women to change legal name and sex without the need of sex reassignment surgery.

The paradoxes, advances and setbacks, of LGBT human rights in Latin America, are perhaps nowhere as clear as in Chile.

Backgound Resources

Trans Respect Transphobia, “TDOR 2010”, http://www.transrespect-transphobia.org/en_US/tvt-project/tmm-results/tdor2010.htm, March 22, 2012

Rachel Glickhouse and Mark Keller, “Explainer: LGBT Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean”, Americas Society Council of the Americas, http://www.as-coa.org/article.php?id=4188, May 24, 2012

El Paradiario, “Presidente del Movilh: ‘Michelle Bachelet ha sido cobarde políticamente’”, El Paradiario 14 (Chile), http://www.elparadiario14.cl/admin/render/noticia/17021, June 2, 2009

Oliver Balch, “The Bachelet factor: the cultural legacy of Chile’s first female president”, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/13/michelle-bachelet-chile-president-legacy, December 13, 2009.

Kimberly Gonzalez, “Civil Marriage and Gay Union Law in the Americas”, http://studentorgs.law.smu.edu/getattachment/International-Law-Review-Association/Resources/LBRA-Archive/16-2/SMB206.pdf.aspx, July 13, 2010.

El Mostrador, “Rolando Jiménez: ‘El de Bachelet fue el peor gobierno para nostoros’, El Mostrador Chile, http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/2012/03/28/rolando-jimenez-presidente-del-movilh-“el-gobierno-de-bachelet-fue-el-peor-gobierno-para-nosotros”/, March 28, 2012.

Abigail Olmstead, “51 percent of Chileans want Bachelet back, poll says”,  The Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/chile/politics/23804-51-percent-of-chileans-want-bachelet-back-poll-says, May 11, 2012.

Biobiochile“Movilh: Bachelet pese a ser socialista, agnóstica y mujer no avanzó nada en diversidad sexual”, Biobiochile.cl, http://www.biobiochile.cl/2011/05/23/movilh-bachelet-pese-a-ser-socialista-agnostica-y-mujer-no-avanzo-nada-en-diversidad-sexual.shtml, May 23, 2012.

Informe 21, “’Piñera ha dado una lección de coraje a Bachelet’ dice colectivo homosexual”, Informe 21, http://informe21.com/sebastian-pinera/pinera-ha-dado-leccion-coraje-bachelet-dice-colectivo-homosexual, June 6, 2012

Rolando Jiménez, “La Mirada del MOvilh al proyecto de Ley Antidiscriminación (video)”, CNN Chile, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXHlZG_2ajQ, novembre 2011.

Andrea Cibotti, “Chilean Senate approves extensive anti-discrimination law”, I Love Chile, http://ilovechile.cl/2011/11/09/chilean-senate-approves-extensive-antidiscrimination-law/38603, November 9, 2011.

Movilh, “Senado aprueba Proyecto de Ley que eEstablece Medidas contra la Discriminación”, Movimiento de INtegración y Liberación Homosexual, http://www.movilh.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1227&Itemid=1, November 9, 2011

HRW, “Chile: Amend and Pass Anti-discrimination Bill”, Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/09/chile-amend-and-pass-anti-discrimination-bill, April 9, 2012.

Movilh, “COmisión Mixta aprueva Ley Antidiscriminación y la déjà lista para ser votada”, Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual, http://www.movilh.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1343&Itemid=1, May 4, 2012.

Eva Vergara, “Chile approves Hate Crime Law After Gay Bashing Death of Daniel Zamudio”, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/chile-hate-crime-law-daniel-zamudio_n_1506362.html, May 9^th, 2012.

Aaron Nelsen, “Chile’s Matthew Shepard Case: How a Brutal Murder Changed the Country’s Mind about Gay Rights”, Time World, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2116433,00.html?xid=gonewsedit, June 4, 2012.

Jonny Payne, “Chile set to allow gay civil unions”, Pink Paper, http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/5427/29/05/2011/chile-set-to-allow-gay-civil-unions-.aspx, May 29, 2011

AFP, “Chile President Sebastian Pinera proposes civil unions”, BBC UK, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14469625, August 9, 2011

Maureen Cosgrove, “Chile president introduces civil union legislation”, Jurist, http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/08/chile-president-introduces-civil-union-legislation.php, August 10, 2011

On Top Magazine, “Chile introduces Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban Amendment”, On Top Magazine, http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=9184&MediaType=1&Category=24, August 11, 2011.

LezGetReal, “Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal Set to Reject Same-Sex Marriage Case”, LezGet Real, http://lezgetreal.com/2011/10/chiles-constitutional-tribunal-set-to-reject-same-sex-marriage-case/, October 31, 2012.

Purple Unions, “Chile Constitutional Tribune to vote 9-1 Against Marriage Equality”, Purple Unions, http://purpleunions.com/blog/tag/chile, November 1^st 2011

Nación.cl, “Matrimonio homosexual: Movilh acude a la corte suprema”, La Nación, http://www.lanacion.cl/matrimonio-homosexual-movilh-acude-a-la-corte-suprema/noticias/2011-12-14/171616.html, December 14, 2011.

The Gay Report, “RULING: Chilean Supreme Court Rules Against Gay Marriage”, The Gay Report, http://www.thegayreport.net/2012/04/ruling-chilean-supreme-court-rules.html, April 5, 2012.

Nación.cl, “Movilh Denunciará al Estado de Chile ante la CIDH”, La Nación, http://www.lanacion.cl/movilh-denunciara-al-estado-de-chile-ante-la-cidh/noticias/2012-04-05/175140.html, April 5, 2012

Factor Absoluto, “El Empolvado proyecto de Acuerdo de Vida en Pareja”, Factor Absoluto, http://www.factorabsoluto.cl/el-empolvado-proyecto-de-acuerdo-de-vida-en-pareja-avp, April 15, 2012.

Patricia Schüller, “Mañalich anuncia que Fonasa ofrecerá prestaciones de salud a transexuales”, La Nación, http://www.lanacion.cl/manalich-anuncia-que-fonasa-ofrecera-prestaciones-de-salud-a-transexuales/noticias/2012-05-24/165351.html, 24 de mayo de 2012.

AFP, “Chile to cover sex change operation”, AFP, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-eUQAVOf1IwN8URwN-6VcwNVgWA?docId=CNG.eae23f2ab8f30139dd842abfb1c0998f.1f1, 25 de mayo de 2012.

Emol, “Salaberry (UDI) ‘Financiamiento a cirugías de cambio de sexo pueden esperar’”, Emol, http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2012/05/28/542809/salaberry-udi-financiamiento-a-cirugias-de-cambio-de-sexo-pueden-esperar2.html, 28 de mayo de 2012.

Nadia Flores, “Presidenta de transgéneros opina sobre inclusión de cirugías de cambio de sexo a la salud pública”, Biobiochile, http://www.biobiochile.cl/2012/05/30/presidenta-de-transgeneros-opina-sobre-inclusion-de-cirugias-de-cambio-de-sexo-a-la-salud-publica.shtml, 30 de mayo de 2012.

Charles Poladian, “Chile to Foot the Bill for Sex Change Operations”, Medical Daily, http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120525/10036/chile-sex-change-operation-public-health.htm, May 25 2012.

Jillian Page, “Chile Doing the Right Things”, The Montreal Gazette Blogs, http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/05/26/chile-doing-the-right-things/, May 26, 2012

Movilh, “Legislación: Leyes y Proyectos”, Movimiento de Integración y LIberación Homosexual, http://www.movilh.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=492&Itemid=12#legislacion, accessed on June 6, 2012

Andrés Rivera Duarte, “Informe sobre Chile: Violación a los DDHH de Personas Transexuales, Quinta Ronda del Examen Periódico Universal ONU”, Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad, http://www.indh.cl/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/EPU-OTD.pdf March 20, 2012

By Grace Poore
Regional Program Coordinator for Asia and the Pacific Islands

Women’s human rights defenders from Indonesia arrived in New York this week to report to the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) about flagrant violations experienced by women and girls in Indonesia across all sectors of society – female circumcision, unsafe abortions, forced sterilization of minority women, marital rape, polygamy, weak implementation of the domestic violence law, police abuses, abuses by domestic worker recruitment agencies, failure to grant reparations to women sexually violated during conflicts with the Indonesian military and police forces, judicial disregard for violence and discrimination against women, rampant abuses against women migrant workers, and many more.

Yet, violence and discrimination against lesbians, bisexual women and transgender (LBT) women was not on the agenda. The spread of intolerance by religious fundamentalists had driven a wedge within the Indonesian women’s movement. Except for one 145-page shadow report that mentioned sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) once, LBT people were invisible. Even Komnas Perempuan, the National Commission of Women was reluctant to raise LBT issues. As one Commissioner explained, “The fundamentalists are saying that when we push for women’s rights we are pushing for same sex marriage. So if we bring up LBT, it will weaken our advocacy.” Another Commissioner assured me, “We can raise the LBT issue at the next CEDAW session.” But that would be five years down the road!

Sri Agustine, director of Ardhanary Institute, a national LBT organization in Indonesia admits, “When I arrived in New York, I was pessimistic because I was the only one from my organization, and the other NGOs [non-governmental organizations] did not want to mention LBT issues because [other] women’s issues were urgent. But I’m a woman also.”

L to R: Sherlina Nageer from Guyana, Grace Poore from IGLHRC, Dorathy Benjamin from IWRAW Asia Pacific, Sri Agustine from Ardhanary Institute. (Photo courtesy of Ardhanary Institute.)

Women’s NGOs Exclude LBT Issues

Since 2000, LBT people in Indonesia have been part of the women’s movement, fighting for equality for all Indonesian women. Yet the CEDAW Convention does not apply to LBT people because LBT rights are not seen as women’s rights by the Indonesian state. This attitude is in part due to the resistance of women’s NGOs to recognize the multi-dimensional discrimination and “layered violence” that LBT people face for being women and also because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Agustine was pressured not to make any statements about LBTs to the CEDAW Committee. It saddened me to see how the forces of religious extremism had managed to compartmentalize advocacy and silence even those who were allies – allies who quietly supported LBT people but publicly could not afford to be associated with LBT rights.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) was aware that in Indonesia, fundamentalist thugs were calling up LBT groups and leaving threatening telephone messages, stalking LBT activists, violently disrupting human rights workshops and film festivals, halting conferences, using the media to incite violence against LBT people, and posting stickers on restaurant windows and banners in public spaces that said, “Destroy Gays and Lesbians.” This climate of hate and intolerance in the name of religion and morality has grown steadily since 2008 and exposed the LGBT community in general to vigilante attacks, police complicity with attackers, curbing freedom of association and assembly, stifling freedom of expression, and eroding LGBT people’s access to justice.

Decentralization

Ironically, these human rights erosions grew out of the decentralization process initiated by the Indonesian government to grant autonomy to local provinces and districts so they could govern themselves, including create their own local laws (or bylaws). Religious extremists usurped the decentralization process to create discriminatory bylaws in their provinces and enforce them with impunity in the name of morality and religion. They targeted sexual rights, reproductive rights, women’s rights and LBT rights. They regulated what women wore, the length of their hair, what public spaces they could access, and how they appeared – with penalties for butch lesbians (lesbian tomboys) for not looking “feminine enough” or transgender women (waria) for “acting like women.”

Ardhanary Institute reports that since 2008, employment discrimination and sexual bullying in schools sharply increased because of the “spread of intolerance.” By 2010, family violence against LBT people had doubled in Jakarta, the capital city, and tripled in the provinces outside Jakarta. Lesbians, particularly lesbian tomboys were increasingly being “sexually abused by fathers, uncles and brothers to change the sexual orientation of lesbians.” Those who risked going to the police faced ridicule and blame for provoking the violence and were lectured by police officers to change their sexual orientation and gender identity. Reports on the violence were quashed by police to prevent “smearing family reputation.”

According to Komnas Perempuan, the Indonesian Women’s Commission, the Ministry of Home Affairs was not properly monitoring and ensuring that the local bylaws were nondiscriminatory and in compliance with international human rights treaties that Indonesia has ratified, including the CEDAW Convention.

These realities challenged the suggestion that LBT people could wait another five years before their issues were brought to the CEDAW Committee. Agustine and I negotiated with the NGOs. Finally, they allocated eight minutes out of seventy minutes, which was fair given the number of NGOs wanting precious face time with CEDAW Committee members. Following our presentations, Komnas Perempuan and the leadership of the CEDAW Working Group of Indonesia revised their statements to include SOGI. They requested from Ardhanary Institute a regular supply of data so they could include it in their educational materials.

State Review

On the morning of July 11, Agustine walked into the room where the 52nd session of the CEDAW Committee would commence, a broad smile on her face, eyes shining. “I feel confident,” she said, having earned the support of the other activists, her sisters in struggle.

The first question on LBT rights violations was raised by Patricia Schulz, CEDAW expert from Switzerland: “The bylaws on adultery passed in Aceh, if implemented, would expose adulterers to death by stoning, and LBT persons to caning, 100 lashes. This law is pending implementation. These bylaws represent grave violations of the rights of women to life, liberty and security… there is no commitment of the government to challenge these local and provincial laws. So I ask if your government plans to systematically review the local and provincial laws and strike down all the provisions that are discriminatory to women. You have the authority and the mechanisms to do so. Let me comment that decentralisation cannot mean that the human rights of women are invalidated at the local and provincial level. Democracy and rule of law, including anti-discrimination and equality law have to walk hand in hand, at all levels of the State structure. Governments are responsible for upholding the obligations arising from ratified human rights treaties, so I hope that you will give us very good news on that respect at our next constructive dialogue.”

The second question came from Silvia Pimentel, CEDAW expert from Brazil and Chair of the Committee: “Due to different risks associated with being identified as lesbians, bisexual, or transgender, LBT people who experience violence by family are reluctant to report their cases to police. Could the State: (a) enhance operational procedures, such as victim representation and witness protection? (b) sensitize frontline staff through training to address these specific fears?”

Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, Director-General of Human Rights in Indonesia’s Ministry of Justice and Human Rights responded, “The allegation about criminalization of LBT is incorrect because Indonesia does not criminalize LBT groups.” He added, “Regarding the punishment in Aceh, the law is not in place yet.”

Harkrisnowo stonewalled. He did not shed light on what measures the state would take to ensure protections. True, Indonesia has no sodomy law like many other Muslim countries in the region. But there are laws that disproportionately affect transgender people like the vagrancy and public order laws. The Anti Pornography Law classifies homosexuality as a “deviant act” that is punishable with jail and a fine.

In addition, a total of 154 local bylaws, regulate how women dress, including lesbians and lesbian tomboys who are punished for not appearing “feminine enough” and effeminate men and transgender women are punished for “acting like women.” Other bylaws force women to cover their heads, control what public places they can socialize in, and how late they stay out – all of which directly and indirectly affect LBT people.

The most egregious of the discriminatory local bylaws is the Aceh adultery law that was passed in 2009 by religious hardliners in the Aceh government. If this law is implemented, heterosexual people will be stoned to death for adultery and LGBT people will be caned 100 times and face 8.5 years in prison for homosexuality, which the law defines as sexual activity outside marriage. Civil society groups have filed for judicial review with the Indonesia Supreme Court. To date, there has been no decision. IGLHRC has learned that the new governor of Aceh favors amending the law. LGBT groups in Aceh fear that even if stoning is removed, the penalties for homosexuality could remain unless there is greater solidarity.

As Agustine said after a long day, “SOGI needs to be included in the definition of discrimination against women in Article 1 of the CEDAW Convention. The Indonesian government needs to ensure that Indonesian LBT people have equal access to the law and justice. The Indonesian government needs to promote acceptance of sexual and gender diversity among non-state actors and destigmatize our issues.”

By Sherlina Nageer

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW Committee”), meeting this month at United Nations headquarters in New York City, will review the human-rights record of several countries that are signatory parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In recent years the CEDAW Committee has increasingly included the rights of lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LBT) women in its deliberations. During the week of July 9, Guyana will be reviewed. There has been strong engagement by LBT activists in preparation for the hearing. In the case of Guyana, an LBT-specific shadow report, “Human Rights Violations of Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (LBT) People in Guyana,” was jointly drafted and submitted by three human-rights organizations: Guyana RainBow Foundation (GuyBow), the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), and the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD). I had the privilege of making an oral presentation of this report to the members of the CEDAW committee on July 9 at the UN.

There is a glaring gap in Guyana’s anti-discrimination policies and practices on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity: There is no specific protection for LBT people in Guyana’s constitution, or in existing legislation. While the argument may be made that certain articles of the constitution offer general protections against all kinds of discrimination, Guyana has retained archaic, colonial-era legislation, such as laws that criminalize cross-dressing and specifically penalize gender-nonconforming individuals. Retaining these laws reinforces discriminatory, heteronormative stereotypes, creating a de facto climate of intolerance for LBT people and negatively affecting their quality of life, mental health, and economic circumstances.

Guyana may say that these laws are not regularly enforced, but the reality is that representatives of the state, such as the police and members of the judiciary, selectively implement them. The sentencing magistrate told four cross-dressers arrested in 2010 that they should “go to church and give their lives to Christ.” One lesbian, who had been attacked because of her sexual orientation and who reported the incident to the police, received no assistance. “The police just laughed and made a mockery of the situation; it was like entertainment to them,” she said. A transgender individual under arrest described being placed in a jail cell with male inmates who were instructed by the arresting officer to rape her. She reported that two of the prisoners did rape her, and that when she cried out for help, no one came to her rescue.

Research conducted among the LBT community by the University of the West Indies and the Equal Rights Trust has revealed numerous instances of discrimination against LBT individuals in multiple public and private sectors.

Homophobic and transphobic crimes remain uninvestigated. LBT people are sometimes prevented from seeing their partners in police custody, and members of the police force regularly intimidate and solicit monetary bribes and sexual favors. In addition, LBT Guyanese are often forced to conceal their identity or face hostility within their families, communities, schools, and workplaces.

Discrimination in employment is a major issue facing gender-nonconforming Guyanese. LBT individuals are often affected in their access to jobs and hindered in their career advancement because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Many people are unemployed, driven to sex work for lack of other opportunities, made to conceal their sexual orientation in order to remain employed, or are summarily dismissed when their sexual orientation becomes known. One lesbian reported, “I work at a school, so I can’t go public. I have to be very careful because of my job; I have to always look around and see who’s watching.” This individual was eventually forced out of her employment at that school. Employment discrimination makes access to the rental and housing market moot for many LBT Guyanese. One woman said, “Because of my sexuality, I cannot get a job, and without a job, I cannot get a [bank] loan [to buy a house] or an apartment.

LBT Guyanese also experience discrimination in their quest for education, and the provision of goods and services. LBT students are bullied and sanctioned by teachers and other school officials. Businesses sometimes refuse to sell goods to or serve LBT people.

LBT individuals are also regularly harassed on the street, from name-calling by men whose advances they reject to being threatened with violence, including “corrective rape.” The families of some LBT women also face harassment.

The Guyanese government has not taken any steps to counter discriminatory stereotypes against LBT people, promote LBT human rights, or protect gender-nonconforming individuals. The retention of the law against cross-dressing and the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity from existing nondiscrimination legislation contribute to the perpetuation of a societal climate that condones stigma, discrimination, and harassment of gender-nonconforming individuals and prevents them from obtaining redress when they are victimized. We urge the CEDAW committee to recommend that the government of Guyana repeal specific discriminatory laws and adopt policies and practices that are inclusive of LBT human rights.

Read more about the work of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commisssion and LGBT human rights defenders at IGLHRC.org.

On June 15, as U.S. President Barack Obama hosted a reception at the White House to mark Pride Month, the now annual celebration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) lives across the United States, there was much to contemplate about U.S. foreign policy and LGBT human rights.

While many celebrated advances made in the U.S. over the past year, this annual White House reception is an opportunity to recognize the efforts the Obama administration has made to promote LGBT human rights beyond U.S. borders. In December 2010 U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice spearheaded efforts to ensure that sexual orientation would remain part of a resolution condemning extrajudicial killings. Last December Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke movingly at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva of how “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.” And President Obama the same day issued an executive memorandum calling upon U.S. diplomats to make LGBT human rights a priority in American foreign policy.

President Obama has gone further than any of his predecessors in advocating protections for individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity, creating important opportunities for activists both at home and abroad. In so doing he has also raised significant questions. While many countries still see homosexuality as a “Western import,” how can the U.S. government support nascent LGBT movements internationally without compromising the political credibility of those involved?

In attempting to assist LGBT advocates globally, the Obama administration must keep in mind the first principle of international development, as noted by British researcher Stephen Wood: “[Listen] to the lived experience of those you are campaigning to support.” Around the world, even in the most homophobic and transphobic countries, LGBT individuals and advocates exist. These individuals know their environment and are best placed to effect real change at the local level.

To improve the lives of LGBT people outside the United States, President Obama and his administration must first engage with people where they are and seek to understand the reality of their daily lives. They must seek to acknowledge, as Secretary Clinton did before the Human Rights Council, that LGBT advocates in the Global South have agency and that they are already formulating diverse, nuanced strategies to enforce their own rights. Rather than dictating a prepackaged governmental agenda or engaging in government-to-government negotiations, the Obama administration should work to understand how it could offer assistance within the framework of existing community action. As Trinidadian advocate Colin Robinson has written, it is those who “live in, understand and engage daily with the states and the localities we wish to change must form the pivot around which any international advocacy strategy or emancipatory movement is built.”

In cases where domestic advocates welcome and encourage the participation of the U.S. government, it may well be appropriate for the Obama administration, led by local partners, to play an active role in seeking LGBT equality at the national level. In other circumstances, local LGBT activists may feel that association with the United States, or any Western government, would be counterproductive and expose them to the allegation of collusion with a foreign power. In that case, stepping back and recognizing that the local activists “know best” would be the course to take, in order to allow national conversations to take their course.

This delicate diplomatic balance is not the only challenge. President Obama has taken a bold and just stance on LGBT human rights internationally. Now, Congress and other American political leaders have a vital role to play. The issue of LGBT human rights must not become one more wedge issue in American culture wars. We urge congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to put aside partisan differences and support the human rights of all people, everywhere, regardless of sexual orientation or sexual identity.

Jessica Stern, Acting Executive Director, will attend the reception and she wants to bring your perspectives, opinions, critiques and stories with her.

For the next five days, we’ll be asking you questions on facebook (fb.com/iglhrc) and twitter (@iglhrc) such as: If you could tell President Obama one way he could help you work for LGBT rights globally, what would you say?

Jessica will hand deliver a message to the White House on Friday!

Share your thoughts in the comments or by email at iglhrc@iglhrc.org.

Follow along on facebook and twitter for more questions throughout the week.

Monday: If you could tell President Obama one way he could help you work for LGBT rights, globally, what would you say?

Tuesday: Is it possible for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to help promote LGBT rights in your country?

Wednesday: What is one thing President Obama and Secretary Clinton should NOT do when promoting LGBT rights internationally?

Thursday: Who is one leader or government official in your country that President Obama should talk to about LGBT rights?

Friday: Will President Obama’s support of LGBT human rights globally help or hurt his re-election campaign?

Jessica Stern, Acting Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) enthusiastically hailed the legislation:

“Argentina has set a new benchmark for protecting and recognizing the human rights of transgender individuals.  We owe this triumph to the efforts of courageous transgénero and travesti Argentineans and activists along with coalitions of allies. This work — carried out over many years, with sustained strength, careful strategy and diverse unity — is what has made this legislation a reality.  We congratulate all of our Argentinean colleagues.”

“All too often, transgender people are subject to violent hate crimes and denied education, housing, healthcare and employment,” Stern continued. “Governments around the world should follow Argentina’s lead and implement progressive legislation to protect the rights of trans people everywhere.”

Transgender Activists from Argentina Celebrate the New Law

Mauro Cabral GATE (Global Action for Trans* Equality) in Argentina

“This legal change in Argentina is also a message going beyond borders. It is a message for countries in the region to advance their commitments on gender identity and human rights issues. A message for all those countries that even today consecrate human rights violations such as forced sterilization in their gender identity laws. This law sends a clear message against transphobic violence, and affirms the full status as humans of trans* people and their right to all rights. It is a message stating that the Yogyakarta Principles are enforceable and that in access to transitional health, trans* identities and experiences can be depathologized. It is a message for all trans* activists everywhere: change is possible. GATE congratulates Argentinean activists for this groundbreaking achievement, and celebrate this historical opportunity for all.”

Lohana Berkins, of Cooperativa Nadia Echazú, and a member of El Frente Nacional por la Ley de Identidad de Género (National Front for the Gender Identity Law) is widely recognized as instrumental in moving this legislation forward. In a recent article, titled Las travestis siempre estuvimos aquí (We transvestites have always been here), Lohana shares her excitement about this groundbreaking legislation.

“Es inmensa la satisfacción que me produce saber que miles de niñxs travestis van a poder plantear su identidad sin ser violentadxs.” (It is immensely satisfying to me to think about the thousands of young transvestites that will be able to define their identity without suffering from [institutional] violence)

“En realidad, la beneficiaria de esta ley es la sociedad entera, que va a poder mirar con orgullo este avance de los derechos humanos”. (In fact, the beneficiary of this law is society as a whole, which will be able to look proudly at this advance in human rights).

Activists from Argentina, the United States and South Africa  

Alejandro Nasif Salum, of Federación Argentina LGBT (FALGBT)

“This law is the result of tireless work of activists and civil society organizations. The Federación Argentina LGBT (Argentina LGBT Federation) is deeply proud to be part of a network of 60 organizations from around the country made up of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. We believe that it was this diversity, in every sense, that was one of the keys to success that has permitted us to do this complex and diverse work and arrive to a law today that we are so proud of and provides an unimaginable leap in the quality of life for trans people.” More from Alejandro is available on our blog in English and Español

Andrés Duque, Colombian-American LGBT activist, and award-winning blogger at Blabbeando

“It’s striking that some of the same organizations and advocates that pushed for the Argentinean marriage equality law of 2010 were also behind the gender identity law.  Their strategy was similar: Go to the courts and demand justice, travel around the country and educate the Argentinean community on the discrimination faced by LGBT individuals and lobby the government for full equality. And, most importantly of all, never forgetting the T in LGBT. It’s an amazing achievement that should inspire us all.”

“Lohana Berkins is one of the earliest visible leaders of the trans/travesti movement in Argentina and had been working with legislators to introduce a gender identity law as far back as the 1990′s.    …she is incredibly important in getting the law passed.”

“One of the key factors for passage of the law with such a huge margin is due, I believe, to the participation of trans man Alejandro Iglesias in the country’s version of the “Big Brother” reality show.  He became a national sensation and, against the odds, probably the most popular person in the show – and humanized transgender individuals for millions of persons in Argentina.”

Dana Beyer, M.D., Trans Activist and Executive Director, Gender Rights Maryland

“With isolationism and parochialism traditional American pastimes, it’s easy to be blind to historic changes in human rights happening globally. Argentina just became the first country to completely depathologize trans sexualism and allow social and medical/surgical transition, with free access to quality health care, and without documentation or court order. It is a recognition of innate human variation, and the ability of human beings to know themselves sufficiently to live free and pursue happiness. It is the new standard for global human rights.”

Harper Jean Tobin, Esq., Policy Counsel, National Center for Transgender Equality

“Although we have made big strides for trans equality, Argentina’s historic legislation is a reminder that we in the U.S. have much to learn from other nations. Argentina’s law reflects the basic principle that individuals should control their own bodies and should neither have unwanted medical procedures imposed on them nor have them denied when they are medically needed.”

Transitioning  Africa  

“Transitioning Africa joins Argentina in celebrating the passage of the most progressive gender identity law in history…  We congratulate the Argentinean trans* activists, their allies and the parliament for working on, tirelessly lobbying for, and eventually seeing the law passed in their country.

Here in Africa, trans* and intersex people undergo a plethora of human rights violations ranging from lack of proper gender affirming procedures and medical care, high levels of stigma and discrimination from the society and from the lesbian, gay and bisexuals community, being ostracised by their families, friends, churches for being different, [and] being killed by their parents due to archaic inhumane cultural beliefs …the governments [often] treat many trans* and intersex persons as criminals. Many African police forces continue to make the lives of trans* and intersex Africans difficult by harassing them on the streets, arresting them and charging them with charges such as ‘impersonation’, by raping them in a bid to ‘make them straight’, and by charging them under sodomy laws which do not apply to trans* and intersex persons…Transitioning Africa envisions a strong and robust trans* and intersex movement in Africa, based on human rights principles.”  Transitioning Africa is a partnership between Gender DynamiX, Transgender and Intersex Africa, & the Support Initiative for People with atypical Sexual Development (Read the Transitioning Africa’s press release.)

 Regional Program Coordinators, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission

Hossein Alizadeh, Program Coordinator for Middle East and North Africa

“This law comes at a time when trans people in Turkey are constantly the subject of societal violence and police brutality. In Iran, sex reassignment surgeries are permissible under the law, however the government does not acknowledge the right for an individual to self-identify their gender identity. The decision of the Argentinean lawmakers to allow individuals—regardless of their biological gender and/or their decision to undergo a sex reassignment surgery—to determine their own gender identity is truly commendable.”

He continued, saying, “I hope this landmark decision in Argentina will encourage other governments to allow each and every individual to freely determine their gender identity, free from social taboos, religious dogmas and legal pressures.”

Damian Ugwu, Program Coordinator for Africa 

“African activists will be encouraged by this development knowing that this latest bill in Argentina is a result of years of hard work by Argentine LGBTI activists. African trans individuals   often struggle simply to have access to basic health care services. While this development in Argentina is unlikely to have a direct effect on the struggle of African trans individuals to be treated with dignity, for African LGBTI activists, it provides a much needed reference point for ongoing advocacy work….A few years back when Argentina legalized same sex marriage it was hardly mentioned in the African mainstream media. The same thing will likely happen in this case. However, that will not stop us from using Argentina as a reference point in  continuing efforts to advance the rights of transgender people.”

Grace Poore, Program Coordinator for Asia and Pacific Islands

“In so many countries legal recognition for transgender people is contingent on having sex reassignment surgery or sterilization and a psychiatric evaluation, which forces people to be viewed and treated as somehow broken needing to be fixed when there’s no medical reason for such invasive, even punitive eligibility requirements. Argentina has broken through this practice and brought respect and dignity into the legalization process. What a remarkable breakthrough!”

Trans Activists from Malaysia and Guatemala, speak out about Transphobia

Johana Esmeralda Ramirez, spokesperson for Trans Organization Reinas de la Noche (OTRANS) in Guatemala, in comments about a shadow report she presented to the UN Human Rights Committee in March 2012:  “During 2011, we organized trans women have suffered a series of attacks against us, culminating in a climax of murder.” She continued, “The recent cases and those suffered over the past decade are accompanied by a string of discrimination (in public spaces such as health centers, schools, prisons, etc.), persecution, and extortion perpetrated mainly by security forces.”

The shadow report, produced jointly by IGLHRC, OTRANS and others, documents a string of murders and systematic discrimination to which transgender people in Guatemala are subjected.

Nisha Ayub, Transgender Program Manager, PT Foundation in Malaysia, spoke to an audience of 3,000 activists at Creating Change: The National Conference for LGBT Equality in January. Ayub told her personal story about her experiences with discrimination: “I was arrested by religious officers when I was 21 years old, in my going of changing towards a trans woman. I was put in a male lockup. I was treated badly. Tortured. Discriminated against. And of course, I was sexually abused in the jail. There was no one to help me. I couldn’t say anything because in Malaysia, if you are a transgender person, you have no rights. You are stripped naked. When I say stripped naked, I mean it. Ok. I was forced to walk naked in front of all the officers, just for them to make fun of me.”

Alejandro Nasif Salum, Secretario de Relaciones Internacionales – Federación Argentina LGBT, Docente Universitario, nos describe la ley nueva y los años muy largos de activismo coordinado que se logró con este proceso extraordinario.

Secretary of International Relations – Argentina LGBT Federation and  University Teacher, describes the new law and the years  long, coordinated effort of LGBT activists that led to this extraordinary progress.

A partir de ahora, cualquier persona, sólo con la manifestación de su voluntad mediante una declaración jurada, podrá pedir en el registro civil la modificación de su sexo y nombre de pila en su documento de identidad y en su partida de nacimiento. A diferencia de lo que sucede en otros países, no necesitará de la intervención de ningún juez, ni de un diagnóstico médico, ni de testigos, ni tendrá que esperar un cierto plazo antes de que le concedan el cambio de documentación.

Además, tanto el sistema de salud pública como el privado deberán garantizar la salud integral de las personas trans, y para ello deberán cubrir los tratamientos hormonales o las cirugías de reasignación sexual o de adecuación corporal en general deseadas. Tampoco en este caso se necesitará de la intervención de la justicia ni de un diagnósitco de “disforia de género” o de un “trastorno de identidad sexual”. En este sentido, podríamos decir que el Estado Argentino ha despatologizado las identidades trans.

Incluso las personas menores de 18 años podrán acceder a la modificación de su documentación o a tratamientos de salud; sólo en el caso de la cirugía de reasignación, el Congreso decidió pedir la intervención de la justicia de menores.

Entendemos que si bien algunas de estas características se encuentran presentes en otra legislación del mundo, la ley argentina es realmente la única que tiene todos estos avances al mismo tiempo y en una sola ley que trata integralmente los derechos de las personas trans.

Leer más

En estos días todo el mundo pregunta “¿cómo lo lograron?”. No es fácil responder a esa pregunta, pero revisando lo ocurrido en los últimos años podemos comprender un poco mejor lo ocurrido.

La ley aprobada hace unos días no es la primera iniciativa que se presentó en el Congreso Argentino. En el año 2007 la Federación Argentina de Lesbianas, Gays, Bisexuales y Trans (FALGBT) y la Asociación de Transexuales, Travestis y Transgéneros de Argentina (ATTTA) elaboraron junto a la diputada socialista Silvia Augsburguer el primer proyecto de Ley de Identidad de Género, que fue presentado en el Congreso con la firma de diputados y diputadas de varios bloques políticos. La ley preveía la formación de una oficina pública, formada por un equipo interdisciplinario de profesionales, que debía evaluar los pedidos de modificación de los datos en la documentación. Aún cuando esto podría parecer una ley conservadora en relación a la ley actual, ya en ese entonces se evitaba el requisito de un diagnóstico de disforia. La ley nunca fue tratada, y fue representada en el año 2009, sin ser tratada esta tampoco.

En el año 2010 la FALGBT y ATTTA presentaron una propuesta mucho más ambiciosa. Se desarrollaron dos proyectos de ley: uno relacionado con la documentación y otro con la atención integral de la salud. Ambas normas contenían todas las propuestas de la ley definitivamente sancionada. Tiempo después otras organizaciones de la diversidad sexual, organizadas en un Frente Parlamentario, presentaron una norma similar que juntaba ambas cuestiones en un mismo proyecto. Todas estas normas fueron unificadas en un único proyecto consensuado por las organizaciones de la sociedad civil y los diputados y diputadas que promovieron la modificación.

El impacto de la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario

Pero sería difícil entender por qué una norma tan avanzada pudo ser aprobada sin tener en cuenta un hecho central. A mediados del año 2010 Argentina reconoció el derecho al matrimonio a las parejas de personas del mismo sexo. El debate parlamentario, social y mediático de la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario instaló en la sociedad la cuestión de los derechos LGBT como algo que debía ser reconocido y protegido. Ya en ese entonces, los y las activistas de la FALGBT en cada intervención en los medios y en las redes sociales para defender el matrimonio igualitario insistíamos en la importancia de que el Congreso sancionara una Ley de Identidad de Género.

No se trataba de un simple eslogan. Estábamos convencidas y convencidos de que la Ley de Identidad de Género era mucho más importante porque las consecuencias que tendría sobre la vida de las personas trans serían enormes. Sin embargo, era una ley mucho más difícil de explicar a la sociedad, mucho más compleja, llena de detalles, tecnicismos y teoría queer. El matrimonio igualitario, en cambio, era muy simple: “queremos los mismos derechos, con el mismo nombre”, insistíamos.

Días atrás, luego de la sanción de la Ley de Identidad de Género, mientras celebrábamos, reflexionábamos: si la Ley de Identidad se hubiese tratado hace unos años, deberíamos haber negociado cada punto, y seguramente habríamos obtenido una ley mucho más conservadora. Lo fundamental fue haber instalado la cuestión en la opinión pública durante todos estos años.

Sin embargo, eso no fue todo. Tanto en la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario como en la Ley de Identidad de Género, la FALGBT organizó una campaña que apuntaba a obtener la respuesta, el compromiso y el trabajo de los tres poderes del Estado.

El Senado, la Cámara de Diputados, la Corte, el Gobierno y la opinión pública

Mientras las leyes se presentaban una y otra vez en el Congreso, se buscaban legisladoras y legisladores aliados en el Senado y la Cámara de Diputados que realmente se comprometieron con la causa y trabajaron fuertemente para esta sanción. También se organizó una campaña de recursos de amparo en la justicia, pidiendo el reconocimiento de la identidad.

Hacía ya varios años que la justicia argentina venía reconociendo cambios de sexo y nombre en el documento; esto ocurría tras mucho tiempo, con la intervención de médicos, psicólogos y peritos que realizaban un sinfín de entrevistas y pruebas algunas veces claramente invasivas, y recién luego de un largo proceso se otorgaba la posibilidad de modificar la documentación. Pero en 2010, la FALGBT y ATTTA iniciaron una campaña de recursos de amparo en los que se pedía explícitamente que no se requirieran diagnósticos médicos ni ningún otro tipo de pruebas más que la manifestación de la voluntad de la persona involucrada.

Varios jueces y juezas dieron una respuesta afirmativa, y desde el comienzo de esa campaña hasta la sanción de la ley muchas personas vieron reconocida su identidad por esta vía. Estos reconocimientos judiciales tuvieron un efecto pedagógico y político muy importante. Por un lado, el reconocimiento de la identidad en estos términos por parte de la justicia en reiteradas ocasiones representó una fuerte presión para el Congreso: resulta muy difícil sancionar luego una ley que sea mucho más conservadora que lo que los propios jueces y juezas ya están reconociendo y afirmando que la Constitución garantiza. Algo similar había ocurrido con el Matrimonio Igualitario: ¿cómo inclinarse por la opción de una “unión civil”, cuando la justicia ya había reconocido el derecho al matrimonio a diez parejas del mismo sexo?

La opinión pública

Pero tal vez el efecto más importante de la campaña de amparos judiciales haya sido su efecto pedagógico en la opinión pública. Cada uno de ellos (y en especial los primeros) recibían mucha atención de los medios y eran así una gran oportunidad para que los y las activistas explicáramos a la sociedad la importancia del reconocimiento de la identidad de género autopercibida, por qué no debía requerirse un diagnóstico médico y otras cuestiones. Debo decir, que resultaba sorprendente escuchar periodistas usando términos como “identidad autopercibida”, “despatologización” o “expresión de género”, entre otras.

Aquí también fue muy importante el desarrollo de una “Guía para Comunicadores y Comunicadoras sobre Identidad de Género” (http://www.lgbt.org.ar/archivos/folleto_identidad2_web.pdf), que desarrollamos especialmente intentando instruir a los y las periodistas para que utilizaran un vocabulario adecuado, entendiendo que eso también influiría en el resto de la sociedad. Durante la campaña por el matrimonio igualitario ya habíamos percibido que muchas veces las y los periodistas apoyaban nuestra causa pero no tenían herramientas ni conocimientos para defenderla. En ese entonces desarrollamos un pequeño material con argumentos que resultó muy útil, y por eso hicimos luego lo mismo con la cuestión de la Identidad de Género.

Todo esto fue instalando poco a poco la cuestión en el debate público como algo que debía ser modificado. La situación de particular vulnerabilidad que buena parte del colectivo trans enfrenta en la Argentina agregó una cuota de urgencia a la cuestión, pero en el fondo creo que logramos convencer a la sociedad, al Congreso, a la justicia y al gobierno de que lo que estaba en juego era el derecho a la identidad, a ser quien uno/a es, y a recibir una atención integral de la salud.

El gobierno

Simultáneamente, fuimos contactando a diferentes funcionarios y funcionarias del gobierno, obteniendo un importante apoyo en muchos casos. Por ejemplo, el Ministerio del Interior en el año 2011 tomó una resolución que autorizaba a personas trans (aún sin modificación de su nombre o su sexo) a tener una documentación con fotografías que respetaran el género autopercibido. Hasta ese entonces era usual que mujeres trans debieran recogerse el pelo y quitarse el maquillaje para dichas fotografías.

Por poner otro ejemplo, a fin del año 2011 el Ministerio de Seguridad ordenó a todas las fuerzas de seguridad respetar la identidad de género tanto de personas detenidas como del personal de la fuerza. Todo esto generó también la sensación de que el gobierno estaba dispuesto a avanzar en el sentido y contribuyó a instalar el debate en la sociedad y en el Congreso.

Unidad entre la comunidad LGBT, sociedad civil, y activismo coordinado

Todo esto fue posible con el trabajo incansable de activistas de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil. En el caso particular de la FALGBT, estamos profundamente orgullosos y orgullosas de ser una red que nuclea a más de sesenta organizaciones de todo el país y que a la vez contiene a referentes y activistas del colectivo de varones gays, lesbianas, bisexuales y personas trans. Creemos que fue esta diversidad, en todo sentido, una de las claves del éxito que nos ha permitido realizar al mismo tiempo tareas tan diversas y complejas, y llegar a tener una ley que hoy nos enorgullece y dará un salto impensado en la calidad de vida de las personas trans.

Creemos que esa misma diversidad debemos obtener en el trabajo entre organizaciones de todo el mundo, para compartir experiencias, para establecer contactos, y para lograr que los avances obtenidos en unos países impulsen cambios en otros lugares del mundo.

Nos unen las mismas historias y las mismas causas, y seguramente es unidos y unidas en nuestra gran diversidad que lograremos el pleno reconocimiento de nuestros derechos y con mucho trabajo y con el paso del tiempo la igualdad social real plena.

Alejandro Nasif Salum, Secretary of International Relations – Federación Argentina LGBT (Argentina LGBT Federation) and  University Teacher, describes the new law and the years  long, coordinated effort of LGBT activists that led to this extraordinary progress.

On the night of Wednesday, May 9th Congress of Argentina enacted the Gender Identity and Health Comprehensive Care for Trans People Act.  It is the first time that the Argentinean Congress fully recognizes the rights of trans people, and the rule is probably the most advanced in the world in this regard.

From now on, anyone, just by manifesting his or her will through an affidavit, may request in the Civil Registry the change of sex and name in his or her identity card and birth certificate. Unlike what happens in other countries, he or she will not need the intervention of any judge, or a medical diagnosis, or witnesses, or have to wait a certain period before being granted the change of documentation.

Moreover, both the public health system and private must ensure comprehensive health care for trans people, and will have to cover hormone treatments, sex reassignment surgery or any other treatment they need. There is no need of judicial intervention or diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” or a “gender identity disorder.” In this sense we could say that the Argentine State depathologized trans identities.

Even people under 18 can access the documentation modification or health treatments. Just in the case of gender reassignment surgery that Congress has requested the intervention of juvenile justice.

We understand that while some of these features are present in other legislation in the world, the law in Argentina is really the only one with all these advances at the same time and in a single act that deals comprehensively with the rights of trans people.

Everyone is asking, “How did you do it?”  It is not easy to answer that question, but reviewing what happened in the past few years we could understand a little better the process.

The law that passed a few days ago is not the first initiative to be introduced in the Argentine Congress. In 2007 Argentine Federation for Lesbians, Gay, Bisexuals and Trans (FALGBT) and Association of Transsexuals, Transvestites and Transgendered of Argentina (ATTTA) developed together with the Socialist MEP Silvia Augsburguer the first draft of a Gender Identity Law, which was introduced in Congress with the signing of deputies in various political blocs. The project proposed the formation of a public office, formed by an interdisciplinary team of professionals, which was to evaluate requests for modification of data in the documentation. Although this might seem a conservative law in relation to current law, still it avoided the requirement for a diagnosis of dysphoria. The law was never addressed, and was introduced again in 2009, without being addressed then, either.

In 2010 the FALGBT and ATTTA presented a much more ambitious project. We developed two bills: one dealing with the documentation and the other with the comprehensive health care. Both together contained all the points that stand in the act finally enacted. Later, other organizations focused on sexual diversity, organized in a Parliamentary Front, had a similar rule that gathered both issues in one project. All these rules were unified into a single project agreed upon by the civil society organizations and the Parliamentary deputies who promoted the change.

 The Impact of the Argentinean Equal Marriage Act

It would be difficult to understand how such an advanced nrom could be adopted without regard to one central fact. In mid-2010 Argentina recognized the right of marriage to same sex couples. The parliamentary, social, and media discussion of the Equal Marriage Act set in the society the issue of LGBT rights as something that should be recognized and protected. Since then, the activists of the FALGBT, in each intervention to defend equal marriage, used  the media and social networks to insist on the importance of Congress also passing a law on gender identity.

It was not just a slogan. We were convinced and we still believe that the Law on Gender Identity was much more important because the consequences on the lives of trans people would be enormous. However, it was a law much more difficult to explain to society, more complex, full of details, technicalities and queer theory. Equal marriage, however, was simple: “We want the same rights, with the same name,” we insisted.

Days ago, after the enactment of the Gender Identity Act, while celebrating, we reflected; if this Act had been discussed a few years ago, we would have negotiated every point, and surely would have obtained a much more conservative norm. The key was to have installed the issue in public opinion over the years.

But that was not all. Both for the Equal Marriage Act and the Law of Gender Identity, the FALGBT organized a campaign that aimed to get the commitment and work of the three branches of government.

The Courts, Congress, Government and Public Opinion

While the laws were presented again and again in Congress, we sought for allies between legislators in the Senate and House of Representatives who were really committed to the cause and worked hard for this result. We also organized a campaign of habeas corpus in justice, calling for recognition of identity.

For several years the Courts in Argentina had been recognizing gender and name changes in the documentation, but this usually involved doctors, psychologists and experts who conducted countless interviews and tests sometimes clearly invasive, and only then a long process could reach to the chance of modifying the documentation. But in 2010, the FALGBT began a campaign of appeals for protection in the courts, in which we explicitly asked that no medical diagnosis or any other evidence should be required, other than the manifestation of will of the involved person.

Several judges said yes, and since the beginning of this campaign until the enactment of the law many trans people saw their identity recognized in this way. These recognitions had a very important effect, both pedagogical and political. On the one hand, repeated recognition of identity in these terms by the Courts represented a strong pressure for Congress: it is very difficult to pass a law that is much more conservative than what the judges themselves are already acknowledging and affirming that the Constitution guarantees. Something similar had happened with Equal Marriage: How to opt for a “civil union” when justice had already recognized the right to marry to ten same sex couples?

Public Opinion

But perhaps the most important effect of the Court injunctions campaign has been its educational effect on public opinion. Each recognition (especially at the beginning) received much media attention and was thus a great opportunity for activists to explain to our society the importance of recognizing self-perceived gender identity, why a medical diagnosis should not be required and other issues. I must say, it was surprising to hear journalists using terms like “self-perceived identity”, “de-pathologization” or “gender expression” among others.

It was also very important that we develop a “Guide for Communicators on Gender Identity” (http://www.lgbt.org.ar/archivos/folleto_identidad2_web.pdf), especially trying to educate journalists for them to use appropriate vocabulary, understanding that this would also influence the rest of society. During the campaign for equal marriage we had already noticed that many times journalists supported our cause but had no tools or knowledge to defend it. At that time we developed a little material that gave them very useful arguments, and then we did the same on gender identity.

All this was gradually installing the issue in public debate as something that had to be changed. The particularly vulnerable position that trans groups face in Argentina added urgency to the question, but basically I think we convinced society, the Congress, Justice and Government that what was at stake was the right to identity, to be who you actually are, and receive a comprehensive health care.

Government Agencies

Simultaneously, we were contacting various government officials, gaining significant support in many cases. For example, the Ministry of Interior in 2011 took a resolution authorizing trans people (even without change of name or gender) to have a photo documentation to respect the self-perceived gender. Until then it was usual for trans women to have to remove their hairpieces and their makeup for such photos.

As another example, in 2011 the Security Ministry ordered all security forces to respect the gender identity of both detainees and staff of the force. This also generated a sense that the government was ready to move in this direction and helped to set the debate in society and in Congress.

LGBT Unity, Civil Society and Coordinated Activism

All this was possible with the tireless work of activists of civil society organizations. In the case of the FALGBT, we are deeply proud to be a network that brings together more than sixty organizations across the country and that also contains activists from the groups of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. We believe it was this diversity in every sense, one of the keys to the success that has allowed us to simultaneously perform tasks so diverse and complex, and come to have a law which today we are proud of will represent an unthinkable jump in the quality of life of trans people.

We believe that this diversity is what we must get working among organizations around the world — to share experiences, to network, and to ensure that the progress made in each country’ drives change elsewhere in the world.

We are united by the same stories and the same causes. And probably it is when we are united in our diversity that we will achieve full recognition of our rights, and with hard work, a time over, we will get to real social equality.

Alejandro Nasif Salum
Secretary of International Relations – Argentina Federation LGBT
University Teacher