Transgender rights are human rights: A cross-national comparison of transgender rights in 204 countries

Abstract

Although lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are often treated as a homogenous group, they are not treated equally by states and societies. The F&M Global Barometer of Transgender Rights (GBTR) represents the first multiyear attempt to assess cross-nationally the extent to which countries are human rights protective or persecuting specifically toward transgender individuals. Examining 204 countries from 2011 to 2019, the GBTR, which measures state and societal level human rights protection or persecution, shows that the majority of countries in the world are far from protective of transgender people’s human rights.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank members of the F&M Global Barometers team, Scottie Thompson Buckland and Berwood Yost, and Erin Maxwell and Taylor Chase for their research assistance. We would also like to thank 50 grassroots activists, scholars, and policymakers from more than 40 countries who served as regional peer review experts on the F&M Global Barometers. Thanks also to Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, Chloe Schwenke, Amy Moreno, and anonymous reviewers for comments on previous drafts.

Notes

1 The F&M Global Barometer of Gay Rights methodology can be found on the F&M Global Barometers website: https://www.fandmglobalbarometers.org/.

2 We are not suggesting that the human rights of transgender individuals should be prioritized over the human rights of sexual orientation minorities. We recognize there is significant overlap between LGB and transgender experiences and that an individual may be both a sexual and gender identity minority. However, there are also significant divergences in sexual orientation and transgender experiences of marginalization that point to a need to investigate the transgender experience of human rights as an independent object of study.

3 Citizenship, as defined by T. H. Marshall in his classic essay, “Citizenship and Social Class,” refers to “a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community.” Transgender people have more often than not, been marginalized, and rarely embraced as “full members of a community.”

4 It is important to note that, although not always recognized “legally,” gender variance may be recognized socially. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this important distinction.

5 Unfortunately, this is not even the tip of the iceberg. In 2021, 375 transgender individuals were killed, making it the deadliest year of violence against gender diverse people since records began. Many more hate crimes and murders go unreported or misreported by the media (Wareham, 2021).

6 In addition, the quality of data on violence toward transgender individuals is also poor. Most countries do a poor job of even acknowledging crimes against transgender people in such terms; they are simply classified as crimes against “gay” people or as crimes against a transgender person’s assigned gender at birth. We thank Chloe Schwenke for this point.

7 See the United Nations Free and Equal Campaign: https://www.unfe.org/.

8 For example, some societies recognize “third gender” individuals, like the hijras of South Asia, the Waria of Southeast Asia, the Fa’afafine in Pacific Islander communities, and two-spirit people in many Native American and Canadian cultures. They have experienced different levels of tolerance and rights protection, depending on the country. Another example is the Khawajasira communities in Pakistan (a community of gender diverse people) that have been historically recognized by the Pakistani government. However, “Pakistan still remains one of the most vocal opponents to greater recognition and protection of human rights on the basis of SOGIESC” (ICJ, 2020: 5). A more in-depth study of “third gender” individuals can be found at Ghoshal (2020a, 2020b).

9 For a more in-depth study of the limitations of index-based scholarly work on LGBTQI rights, see Weiss and Bosia (2013) and Kollman and Waites (2009).

10 “The ‘medical model” constructs gender nonconformity through the psychiatric diagnosis of ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ (revised to Gender Dysphoria in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition [DSM-5]); it is based on the presumption that only two genders exist, but some individuals experience severe discomfort with their gender and should therefore be entitled to transition into the ‘other’ gender” (Jain & Dasgupta 2021: at footnote, 10).

11 Our data show that, of the countries that allow for legal gender recognition, many require transgender people to seek a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder from a mental health professional, social worker, or medical panel.

12 The 27 countries were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, France, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States of America (IPSOS, 2018).

13 This is not to discount the rich country-specific transgender rights case-study research that has been conducted by scholars in the field; however, we acknowledge that this type of research does not necessarily lend itself to broader cross-national comparison. We argue that data from the F&M GBTR can actually provide an important foundation for richer, comparative analysis.

14 See Dicklitch (2002) for a definition of a rights-protective regime and rights-respecting society.

15 These include freedom and equality in dignity and rights (UDHR, Articles 1, 2, ICCPR, Article 2 (1)), the right to physical security (UDHR, Articles 3, 5, ICCPR, Article 6, ICCPR, Article 9), the right to health (ICESCR, Article 12 (1)), equal protection under the law (UDHR, Articles 6–11, ICCPR, Article 26), the right to privacy (UDHR, Article 12, ICCPR, Articles 9, 17), freedom of expression or opinion (UDHR, Article 19), the right to peaceful assembly and association (UDHR, Article 21), and the right to work (UDHR, Article 23, ICESCR, Article 2; UDHR, Article 5; ICCPR, Article 7).

16 We recognize the US-centricity of the report card grading structure, and especially the wide variance found in the F category that is inclusive of 0–59%. Although the F category is broad, each country is assigned a percentage score that allows for comparison even within each category. Similarly, the color coding of the F category is based on a gradient of red that allows for further distinctions within that specific category.

17 Full GBTR scorecard with items are available at https://www.fandmglobalbarometers.org/methodology/.

18 At the same time, we acknowledge that such a large quantitative study that focuses on 17 items may not adequately represent the global lived realities of transgender people.

Additional information

Funding

The F&M Global Barometers receive funding from the multidonor LGBTI Global Human Rights Initiative, founded in 2019, and brings together the United States Agency for International Development, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Global Affairs Canada, the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, Civitas Public Affairs Group, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, and Franklin & Marshall College.

Notes on contributors

Susan Dicklitch-Nelson

Susan Dicklitch-Nelson is professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College and the founder and creator of the F&M Global Barometers, including the F&M Global Barometer of Gay Rights and the F&M Global Barometer of Transgender Rights. She is the author of The elusive promise of NGOs in Africa: Lessons from Uganda (Palgrave Macmillan 1998), and multiple scholarly articles on human rights and democracy.

Indira Rahman

Indira Rahman is a research associate and project manager of the F&M Global Barometers at Franklin & Marshall College. They hold a BA from Franklin & Marshall College. They are the coauthor of “Joint responsibility: LGBT rights in a polarized world,” The Globe Post (April 8, 2019).