Self‑Identity at Stake in New Transgender Bill

Hyderabad:Doctors already ask transgender people questions they do not ask anyone else. They ask what is “down there”. They ask why someone “changed” their gender. Dr Prachi Rathod knows what that feels like from inside the public health system, and that is why the proposed amendment to India’s transgender law reads to her as an additional attack on the dignity of trans people.

“Gender identity is not a disease that needs to be diagnosed or treated. A person’s identity cannot be decided by the government or by doctors. It should be the individual’s choice,” said Dr Prachi Rathod, medical officer at Osmania General Hospital and one of the first doctors from the trans community to join government service in Telangana.

What sits before Parliament as the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 appears to change definitions but in reality it changes certification. It changes who gets counted and who does not. It removes the phrase “self‑perceived gender identity” from the law and replaces it with compulsory certification by a medical board before a gender certificate is granted.

The 2019 law defined a transgender person as someone whose gender does not match the gender assigned at birth, including trans men, trans women, intersex persons, genderqueer people and identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta. The amendment restricts recognition to specific socio‑cultural categories and intersex variations, excluding trans men, non‑binary and other gender‑diverse persons.

In practice, this would mean a trans person seeking legal recognition would no longer stand before the state as the final authority on their own identity.

“There is no medical basis for ‘certifying’ someone’s gender identity. International medical classifications do not say doctors must diagnose or verify a person’s identity,” said Dr Rathod. “We don’t ask cisgender men or women to prove their gender identity. Asking only transgender people to undergo verification takes away their dignity.”

Kaushik Gupta, a lawyer in the Calcutta High Court, whose statement has gone viral, called the amendment “extremely dangerous” and said it “removes an entire section of the transgender population, particularly trans men, from the protection of the law.” Further, he added, “A new provision proposes severe punishment, even life imprisonment, for allegedly forcing someone to become transgender. This could easily be misused by authorities and become a tool to target hijra communities.”

Patruni Chidananda Sastry, the Hyderabad‑based drag performer and activist who also protested at a Bangalore club this weekend during their performance, said, “Self‑identification is a basic human right. Gender identity should never require government inspection, medical proof, or bureaucratic approval. Our dignity and autonomy are not up for debate.”

Students at the University of Hyderabad made the same point after protesting at the main gate this weekend. Mobbera Foundation, another Hyderabad LGBTQIA+ collective, said, “the new Bill forces the community back into a world of surveillance and ‘proof’”, referring to the NALSA v. Union of India judgment, which matters because it was the moment when the Supreme Court of India said the state could not own this question. The judgment recognised the right of transgender persons to self‑identify as male, female or third gender and placed that right within constitutional guarantees of dignity, autonomy, equality and non‑discrimination.

“Doctors are not equipped to decide someone’s gender identity. Even today, many medical professionals lack basic awareness about transgender issues, pronouns and gender diversity,” said Dr Rathod. “Policies like this can push many people in the community into depression. Fear of scrutiny or diagnosis could stop people from coming forward about their identity,” Rathod concluded.