I convey my best wishes to everyone on the occasion of the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s judgement on gender minorities (Thirunangais, Thirunambis, Kothis, Hijras, Jogammas, Shivasaktis, Transsexuals, Kinnars and others) as well as for the Transgender Day.

On 15th April 2014, the Supreme Court had delivered an important verdict that firmly foregrounded the reality of gender politics that had remained hidden so far. The court had ruled that the Thirunangais (or Hijras) and Thirunambis (or FtoMs) in India will be recognised as a third gender*, as distinct from female/male. It had also ordered that they be included in the list of backward communities and that the central and state governments should immediately ensure that they can access all the basic rights that are guaranteed under the constitution. We are now planning to celebrate the first anniversary of this judgement on 15 April 2015, and to convey our thanks for this positive judgement. This celebration, which is a festival for Thirunangais and Thirunambis, is a recognition and validation of all Gender Minorities.

On this day, I request all our activists to join in analysing the steps taken so far, and the steps that need to be taken in the future, in accordance with the Supreme Court judgement. I also request them to help in formulating our demands and carrying forward the struggle to access our rights. We need to carefully go through the 130-page judgement and identify which parts are acceptable and which parts are not. In this context, we also need to make ourselves aware of the steps taken by the Tamilnadu government so far.

In the coming years, having obtained our basic rights, we should succeed in all spheres of life, including education and employment, and show the world that we are no less than anyone else.

However, the Supreme Court’s judgement on IPC 377 is against the Thirunangai community and we need to struggle to change this.

I would like to convey my best wishes to everyone on this Transgender Day and the anniversary of the verdict on Gender Minorities that our future will be bright and full of cheer.

With love,
Revathi

* Editor’s note: NALSA recognises the right of transgender people to identify as the third gender as well as within the binary (man/woman) framework.

** Translated by Niruj.

This is 22 dollars I really cannot afford to spend on anything, really. As in most economic scenarios, those 22 dollars, or 1700 rupees and change, could have gone to pay for so many things. New clothes for me. A gym payment. Savings. Or just plain stayed in my account and be used to buy food and coffee later.

But. I did pay 22 dollars for this website, which not only is queer, it is brilliantly erotic and exciting as well, and inclusive.

I paid 22 dollars for porn. For the first time in my life, I paid money to watch porn.

It was the least I think I could have done, to say thank you to the wonderful, sexy, beautiful people who have for the last month, allowed me to watch porn, legally, for free. I did not pirate it. I did not download it off some peer-to-peer network. I did not use someone else’s login to stream. Quite legally, because of the kindness of an amazing human being, I watched a month’s worth of beautiful people fucking each other.

And so I wanted to say thanks to the people. By paying for the privilege of seeing them having fun in their own and in each others’ bodies.
It’s beautiful.
It’s exciting.
It’s so relieving.
To watch porn that you’ve paid money for.

And the reason I paid for it, despite not really being able to afford it, is because I think this is more than just masturbating, more than just getting off to something on the internet.

This is my politics. This is my activism. This is my way of affirming my growing belief in a few things.

I’ve been trying to go ethical about the porn I see. Which means buy it, not just rip it off someone or copy from a peer-to-peer network.

It’s hard. It’s really hard to not make illegal copies of things because most of the porn produced is priced way out of my (meagre) disposable income range. And it is in American dollars and behind a credit card wall. Which is tough for someone in India, who has to support their parents, pay for their own living expenses, save up some money for transition, pay off past loans, and spend on things like clothes and make-up, because whatever minor ways I express my femininity is very, very, very important to me now.

But, paying for porn is what keeps the people I like doing the things they like, which happens to coincide with the things I like. If they don’t get paid, they might have to go back to doing shit porn, which is not stuff I like at all.

Ethical porn – in one of my fave porn performer Jiz Lee’s words – “BUY the Porn you want to see in the world.”

I’ve had an excel sheet – it’s been around for a while – in which I’ve noted down costs, rates, expenses etc. for transitioning outside India. Basically, it helped me feel better about the rather desperate situation I was in. I thought if I could calculate how much it would cost to move, to live and transition, and how much I could earn, I’d actually do it.

I’ve now added an extra section there, under expenses. Porn. Buying porn that I consider good – one that shows me people like me, having great sex, and enjoying it.
I believe Porn – pornography – erotica – is an essential, important thing. I wish we had more of a dialogue about it. I wish we talked more openly about porn, about sex, about sexuality, and being a sexual person.

But, that’s not just why I paid for this site.

I paid, because, as I have already said, it is queer (and how! I will get to this point soon), sex positive, fun pornography.

Not the kind of porn with false gasps and moans and the battle of sizes. Here it’s beautifully natural.

I’d like to describe one moment featuring Jiz Lee (who I would love to hug and kiss) and a performer called Nina Hartley, as an example of what natural means.

Midway through a rather awesome session of sex where Nina is on top and dominating Jiz absolutely; there is a pause as Jiz turns around and asks Nina to use their belt on Jiz, as a way of holding/gripping them better. It was considerate, sexy, practical and so much of a turn on. It was a moment in which porn became less an artifice and something of a piece of reality. Here was quite simply, two people having sex. In the best way they both wanted it. And the camera became nothing more, nothing less, than something marking a moment of truth.

But that’s not just why I paid for my porn.

I paid, because my porn is sex positive and body positive and queer.

One of my fave stars is Courtney Trouble. Oh they are such a hottie.

In any other world of porn, they’d be in a tiny category at the end of the site and with enough warning labels to turn off even the staunchest seeker. They would be called BBW, tubby, big mamma and so on, and be fetishized the hell out of any erotic impulse. Here, Courtney is front and centre, no labels beyond the ones they themselves want.

You could be any body, any colour, any shape, any size. You could question your gender or be fully comfortable with it. You could question your sexual orientation or know, compass like, where it points to. You could want to give pleasure or take pleasure or switch it up. You could be big, tall and have gloriously chunky thighs that rub and roll together when you walk. Like me. Or you could be petite, or you could be the statistically average height, weight, skin colour and have 1.8 kids and a car and a house in the suburbs. You could be anything and mix and match everything.

I feel, there’s a little bit of me, and a little bit of everybody in the kind of porn I like, and the kind of porn I paid money for.

This website showed me people having fun with their own bodies and the bodies of their friends and lovers.

I can’t think of a time when I watched porn like that. That is why I paid 22 dollars for the porn I would like to see.

Indira has been out as a queer person since she was 20. However, she was not out to herself as a transwoman back then, identifying as a gay man for a long time. She began her professional career with the India operations of a Wall Street giant ‘X’. During her six years at X, Indira was open and out as a gay man with her employer. She did not have the need to inform them that she was dyslexic, as the role leveraged her strengths and didn’t put her inadequacies to test.

Indira was recognized with awards for high performance every year of her time at X.

She then moved to company Y. During the next six years, Indira was open and out as a gay man to her employer at Y as well. It was over these years that Indira began questioning her gender and gender identity, and came to terms with her disability. In June 2014, Indira was rehired by company X. Over the next six months Indira would be at the receiving end of the company’s violation of the mandate of the NALSA vs. Union of India judgement (hereafter, NALSA judgement) where the Supreme Court laid down that SRS should not be a prerequisite for gender change as gender transcends the body and cannot be reduced to the presence of an organ or the absence of it. The company also violated its own disability policy that mandates that differently-abled people be offered roles in consonance with their skills and strengths. This essay documents the challenges faced by Indira since her coming out as trans and dyslexic.

The First Week
Late in March 2014, Indira received a call that informed her of a role in her former employer X. The job description (JD) emailed to Indira detailed that the role she was being considered for was a ‘high logic’ role in need of a person with ‘investigative problem solving’ skills and ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking. The JD laid down the need for very strong logical and analytical skills in the candidate and Indira was an excellent fit. She was immediately hired after a battery of aptitude and psychometric tests. Almost immediately, Indira received an offer, and in less than a week she had landed the job. It is widely believed that a corporate does not rehire an ex-employee unless it is very clear and convinced about the value proposition that he/she would bring to the table.

Indira joined X in the first week of June. Her on-boarding was rushed and was completed in just 1.5 hours. She was made to board a flight to Mumbai on an assignment the very same day. Consequently, Indira’s full-fledged three–day long induction was deferred for 6 months. And, no bank account was set up.

Indira did not come out to her employer as a transwoman during hiring, for fear of an adverse hiring bias that may have no bearing whatsoever on her competence or merit. No law or organizational policy mandates that candidates reveal either their gender identity or sexuality at the time of hiring. Candidates may choose to disclose it if they wish to. Also, during the time of hiring, Indira had applied for gender- and name-change documents through an affidavit. Within a week of her joining work at X, she obtained her papers formalising these changes. Immediately, Indira came out to her manager and the functional head as a transgender woman. She submitted the papers and stated that she wanted her new name and gender to be reflected in all her records, emails, business cards and HR and business databases. She also sought access to either a women’s restroom or a gender-neutral restroom. Indira also informed her manager that her induction was pending and hence all other joining formalities were undone too. He listened and assured her that it would be done and that she will be nominated for it in some time. He did not specify a timeline, and instead put her on to the HR person. Indira also came out to the HR as a transgender woman. In a follow-up email to the HR and her functional head, Indira flagged four key concerns:

1. The training on prevention of sexual harassment at X is obsolete as it does not take transgender people and the NALSA 2014 judgement into cognizance. This is a grave concern: inaction makes the organization strategically complicit in the invisibilization of transgenders, in allowing practices deleterious to their wellbeing at the workplace. It is also violative of the NALSA judgement.

2. Her discomfort in accessing the men’s restroom and need to access either the ladies restroom or at least a gender-neutral restroom in line with the NALSA judgment. She felt sexually harassed on being forced to used the men’s restroom.

3. Her complete discomfort with being addressed Inder or the use of male personal pronouns, such as ‘he’ or ‘his’. She stated that mis-gendering when read  with NALSA the judgement clearly constitutes sexual harassment. She also told them that as per both the statute and X’s policies all sexual harassment complaints need to take impact as stated by the complainant into immediate cognizance. She reminded them of the thumb rule of impact vs. intention applied in the Vishakha guidelines of the Supreme Court and the new law Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.

4. Her non-induction till date and consequent incompletion of all induction formalities.
Indira attached her non-SRS gender- and name-change papers with this email. The HR questioned her as to why she didn’t reveal her trans identity at the time of hiring. Indira explained that her coming out was legally unwarranted. He addressed her as Inder despite her telling him that she is not Inder but Indira. Since he was clearly unaware of the NALSA judgement, the HR person was not able to advise Indira. He asked for some time and told her that as she was in a critical stage of a high priority project, she would need to wait to get released to get inducted. This email and this week in June was the first in a seven-month long fight against employment discrimination and organizational opacity.

The First Month
Indira began her assignment—a training and immersion programme with the client in Mumbai—that was meant to go on for 1–1.5 months. Near the last week of June, Indira reminded her managers and the HR, both verbally and on email, of her non-induction and of her trans identity for change of name and gender formalities.

In the meanwhile, another issue had popped up at work. The job-on-the-floor was completely different from what was communicated to her during hiring in the JD. It was, instead, a high precision job, demanding critical business decision-making in one reading, and within a timeline of 15–20 minutes; a dyslexic’s nightmare. Indira informed her manager, the functional head and the HR person of her dyslexia and the wrong fitment into this role. She explained at length that dyslexia is a statutory learning disability covered in X’s own disability policy. She followed this up on email by attaching her dyslexia certificates from two leading private hospitals, viz. Apollo and Medanta, and two leading government hospitals, viz. Institute of Behaviour and Allied Sciences and Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Delhi.

Indira was asked by the HR as to why she did not reveal her condition of dyslexia at the time of hiring. She responded that she was never asked if she was dyslexic either verbally or in writing. She highlighted that the JD sent to her showed no bearing that her dyslexia could possibly have on the role that she was being hired for. She also highlighted that the key information on the role was misrepresented and withheld by the employer who shared a flawed JD and skewed her understanding of the role. There was a clear and total JD vs. job-on-the-floor mismatch; this was not an L&D (Learning and Development) job, but an operational training role. Indira received a standard response on email from the HR person that her concerns were being considered, while he continued to address her as Inder.

Three Months, Two Reminders and One Escalation
In July, Indira requested her functional head and the HR for a resolution to all the above issues she had raised. She received no response to her email other than an out-dated Out of Office reply. Indira received an email from the HR in the end of July that she needs to submit her Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) certificate for gender change. Indira immediately responded that insisting on SRS as a prerequisite for gender change is violative of the NALSA judgement. She did not receive a response. One month later, in September, Indira writes again to all highlighting that insistence on SRS as a prerequisite for gender change is violative of the NALSA judgement. She reminded her manager and the HR of her request for a resolution to all the issues raised. Four months down, Indira was still in Mumbai, hadn’t been inducted yet, bank account formalities were not done and salary unpaid.

By the last week of September, Indira escalated the issue to the General Manager (HR). However, that did not yield any results either. Her HR personnel responded instead, informing Indira that that there were no provisions in X’s India policies to change her name and gender. She wrote back explaining that it was not in line with the NALSA judgement and sends her the gender- and name-change documents again. She also drew attention to his email that it didn’t address the other issues she had raised, viz. statutory protection for dyslexics at work under the company’s policy, JD vs. job-on-the-floor mismatch, non-induction and incompletion of induction formalities.

Reaching the Ombudsperson
The ensuing reply from the HR personnel still addressed Indira as Inder and simply repeated that there were no such policies at X in India. Indira reminded him of X’s global policy, explaining that the global policies on ‘Respecting the individual and Diversity and Inclusion’ have a provision for it. The HR dismissed it as not being applicable in India. It was the end of October and the GM (HR) intervened for the first time, adding a one-liner that Indira should submit her sex re-assignment surgery (SRS) certificate. Indira was still in Mumbai after her first assignment of 1–1.5 months gets extended to 6 months.

In the first week of December, Indira received her confirmation letter. Now, she raised the same issues in the confirmation meeting with her manager and the HR and followed it up with an email. Indira was coaxed and cajoled verbally to stay calm as she is doing very well for herself and shouldn’t insist on a role change. They skirted the issue of her trans identity, name and gender change, access to gender neutral restroom, role change and other issues. Her subsequent escalation of this concern to the GM (HR) did not yield any result. Instead, she received an email from her functional head and the HR person complimenting her work in the project. The mail explained she was a strong resource, greatly needed, and that she could not have a role change. Her manager had also written in reiterating that she should submit an SRS certificate. This email had an undeleted comment in email exchanges between her manager and the HR personnel casting aspersions on her trans identity and questioning the veracity of her dyslexia. It must be remembered that she had submitted, well in time, all gender- and name-change documents as evidence and her dyslexia certificates from leading private and government hospitals.

Following this Indira raised a complaint with the office of the Ombudsperson and the Global Diversity and Inclusion Head. She mentioned in her email that the escalation to the GM (HR) did not yield any results and that she had engaged enough and more with the business and HR leadership and that she had exhausted all options of redress in India. She reported the deliberate mis-gendering, wanton sexual harassment, persistent disability discrimination, employment discrimination and protracted non-payment of wages.

She attached all supporting documents, emails, follow up emails, incomplete responses from her manager and the HR personnel that showed the inherent discrimination, and flagged these as violative of X’s policy and the laws of the land. She explained that her case had a very high risk of litigation if not addressed internally and adequately within X.

Hearings and the Deliverance of Justice
The offices of the Ombudsperson, Global Diversity and Inclusion took cognizance of this complaint and scheduled the first hearing—with Indira and the defendents, her manager and the HR personnel—on 11th December 2014. On the day of the first hearing, Indira presented and defended her case with evidence before the joint committee of the Ombudsperson, Global Diversity and Inclusion. After the 2-hour sitting her manager and the HR personnel seek time to build their defence and show evidence. The case was adjourned for second hearing on 17th December 2014.

On 18th December 2014, the second hearing was summoned. Indira defended her case with all the above evidence, supporting emails, notarised affidavits and certificates. The defendants failed to present any evidence other that their own verbal submissions. They sought more time. The joint committee made oral and written observations and gave time up to 5th January 2015.

On 5th January 2015, the third hearing was summoned. The defendants yet again failed to present any evidence in the form of emails or their responses to Indira’s emails. Making oral submissions, they sought more time to gather evidence. The joint committee made scathing verbal and written remarks on file against the defendants and gave a final timeline not exceeding beyond 13th January 2015 for submission of evidence. The committee mandated that the decision would be announced on the 13th of January regardless of whether the defendants submit evidence or not.

On 13th January, the fourth hearing was summoned. The defendants failed to present any evidence other their own verbal submissions. The committee awarded a verdict. The committee held the defendants complicit in violating X’s policies on the following counts:

1. Disability discrimination under X’s Global Disability Policy. The committee upheld Indira’s right to a role change in line with her skills and the JD that was emailed to her at the time of hiring.

2. Deliberate mis-gendering both verbally and on email as Inder instead of Indira by company X’s India business leadership and India HR despite submission of all relevant and necessary supporting documents by her. The committee declared that such treatment of Indira by X India was violative of X’s HR policies and the NALSA judgement.

3. Sexual harassment of Indira by undermining her integrity on email with disparaging remarks; denial of access to a restroom of her chosen gender and coercing her to only use the men’s restroom; and, wantonly addressing her by the name and pronouns assigned to her at the time of her birth.

4. Insistence of SRS for gender change as violative of the NALSA judgement.

5. Discrimination and severe harassment for denial of pay, non-induction and for not setting up her bank account even after six and a half months of joining.

The committee awarded immediate release of Indira from the current role and instructed a role change within a timeline not exceeding 10 business days to a role in accordance with X’s JD and Indira’s skills, resume and her dyslexic condition. The committee ordered that Indira shall henceforth only be addressed as Indira and that she shall have access to restrooms of her chosen gender and that all records both online and otherwise should reflect Indira’s credentials by her chosen gender and name and that all the above changes need to completed within 10 business days ending on 27 January 2015.

This essay tries to bring to light the undercurrent of bias and stigma that operate invisibly against a certain disenfranchised and marginalised constituencies, in this case a dyslexic transgender person at the workplace. Besides, it reveals how disability, diversity and anti-sexual harassment policies that are meant to offer an equitable workplace and cover of protection are observed more in the breach than in compliance in the case of the differently-abled and the transgenders. Consequently, X tested Indira not on her skills, strengths or inadequacies but on her disability. It also underscores how the same person with the same set of skills and the same level of performance is treated very differently before and after gender change by the same employer.

P.S.: For confidentiality, names of all people—including Indira’s—have been changed, places have been changed and the name of her employer withheld.

The more I thought about it, the more sense it made to me. Inclusivity sometimes just becomes a re-drawing of boundaries, even when it’s not meant to be that – a checklist with the different marginalised groups we “include.” For example, many job openings run the disclaimer: “Women, people belonging to different castes, tribal communities and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.” Some people will then critique this statement for not checking enough of the boxes in our politically correct list of marginalised groups, like those excluded, in society, based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

First of all, I doubt anyone can create a checklist that would encompass every such group. And second, this approach reaffirms narratives of “Who is more marginalised?” and “How many categories on this checklist does one person belong to?” These are counter-productive to what a lot of us try to achieve as human rights activists.

I will readily admit that I’ve been guilty of this way of thinking. And while it didn’t make complete sense to me, I couldn’t quite put my finger on what was wrong with it. This is why the statement about ‘opening up’ was so metamorphic for me. It became a one-sentence principle to guide my efforts towards elimination of boundaries versus their re-drawing.

I’ve been working with Amnesty International India for more than six months now. It’s a space that is definitely one of the more progressive and less bigoted work environments I’ve experienced. Having been a part of the LGBTQI support community for a while now, I was happy to notice during my interview that the restrooms here did not have the traditional Women/Men signs (For the purpose of clarity, I would like to mention that these are single-occupancy restrooms).

A month later, when I started working here, those very Women/Men signs greeted me at the restroom doors. And really, what is up with those signs? The Men/Women stick figures are hardly representative of what actual men and women look like. Not that other signs featuring men with moustaches and hats and women with nose pins and long flowing hair do any better and only reinforce gender stereotypes!

The hiring policies and work culture of Amnesty do not reflect this bias, but those restroom signs still had to go. Taking the point of reinforcing gender stereotypes and conformity further, the existence of separate restrooms provides challenges for some transgender and intersex persons. Here are a few reasons why:

1. There aren’t just two genders of ‘man’ or ‘woman.’ A person may not necessarily identify as male or female, and signage that does not recognise other gender identities can become an act of gender discrimination by limiting access.
2. There aren’t just two sexes of male and female. Intersex people, who possess characteristics that do not correspond to normative standards of male or female, need not identify as male or female, irrespective of the sex assigned at their birth.
3. A transgender person may not want to publicly reveal their identity, or may be going through a physical transition to conform to their true gender identity and/or gender expression. The Men/Women signage places them in a situation of conflict: of either having to use a restroom they do not prefer, or out themselves at a time when they may not be ready. And all this when a person may already be going through physical, hormonal and psychological changes and stress.

Also important to consider is the violence a transgender or intersex person might face in restrooms that have distinct and exclusively Men/Women multiple-occupant restroom stalls. A transwoman or hijra using a women’s restroom could be misperceived as a man using a women’s restroom he doesn’t have the right to or vice-versa. This makes it that much more necessary for both public and private spaces to also have individual gender-neutral restrooms (This does not, of course, take away from the need to have women-only – including transwomen – restroom stalls in certain locations, which may be desirable for various reasons, including safety).

After putting together a proposal to our HR department and a consultation with the senior management, we’ve now removed the Women/Men restroom signs in our office and replaced them with ‘all gender restroom’ signs. This step at the Amnesty workplace, and the call for gender-neutral restrooms in public spaces, complements the April 2014 Supreme Court judgment in the NALSA versus Union of India case that directed the legal recognition of transgender persons’ gender identities.

This judgment instituted the right to self identity, called for non-discrimination of transgenders and improved access to opportunities and public spaces. The Court specifically observed that access to public toilets was a problem for transgender persons, who are often forced to use toilets for men, where they are vulnerable to sexual assault and harassment. International human rights law prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.

International human rights treaties that India has agreed to be bound by have been interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on these grounds. UN human rights experts have confirmed that international law prohibits discriminatory treatment in a range of everyday settings like workplaces, schools and hospitals.

‘Being inclusive’ also comes with the implication that it is a thing that you do. You either are inclusive (of certain people) or you are not, similar to the checklist reference, while ‘opening up’ implies more of a process. Nobody has it all figured out. No space is perfectly inclusive. Not even human rights spaces. I doubt anyone knows what such a space would even look like. However, it is important that we start the process – think, listen and act.

This article originally appeared on Social Story, and has been reproduced with consent.