This is a blog is related to my academic work in the International Academic Forum on SOGIESC Law but meant to serve anyone who wants to contribute to improve the protection of human rights worldwide. It is intended to keep interested readers informed about legal developments relating to sexual orientation, gender expression and identity and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). Hopefully, it will make it easier to find correct legal information about the developments in all regions of the world and, in particular, with regard to international law.
Verwaltungsgericht Berlin: „Progress-Pride“-Flagge darf im Grundschulhort hängen (Nr. 33/2025)
25.06.2025 Die „Progress-Pride“-Flagge darf im Hort einer Grundschule hängen. Das hat das Verwaltungsgericht entschieden. Kläger sind die Eltern und ihre Tochter, eine Schülerin einer Berliner Grundschule, die auch den Schulhort besucht. In einem der Horträume hängt an der Wand eine selbstgemalte „Progress-Pride“-Flagge in etwa der Größe DIN A3, wobei sich auf der linken Seite der Flagge ein Keil in den Farben rosa, hellblau, weiß, schwarz und braun sowie ein gelbes Dreieck mit lila Kreis befindet. „Progress-Pride“-Flagge darf im Grundschulhort hängen (Nr. 33/2025)Weitere Informationen
Hong Kong government proposes to legally recognize same-sex couples registered abroad
On Wednesday, the Hong Kong government released an official document that proposes to establish a registration system for same-sex couples who were married or whose marriages are registered overseas.
This document, released by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, mandates that both partners must be of the same sex and at least 18 years old. Further, one of them must be a Hong Kong resident. Such a framework, if implemented, would confer certain important rights upon same-sex couples. These include rights related to the health of their partner, such as hospital visits, access to medical information and organ donations, as well as the right to handle a partner’s post-death affairs, like applying for a death certificate, claiming the body and arranging funeral matters.
Commenting on this proposed framework, the Bureau stated, “It is essential to establish appropriate registration requirements under an alternative framework that aligns with practical realities and public expectations, while safeguarding registrants’ rights and preventing abuse.”
Importantly, this government proposal comes on the back of a crucial ruling given by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in September 2023, in the case of Sham Tsz Kit v. Secretary for Justice. Herein, the Court held that Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights obligates the government to create a legal framework to recognize the rights of same sex couples, with a timeline of two years. However, it stopped short of deciding that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Since this ruling, human rights groups as well as the UN have called upon the government of Hong Kong to take legislative steps in furtherance of the court’s decision. The Court of Final Appeal itself has also gone ahead to affirm the rights of same-sex couples to public housing and inheritance.
Hong Kong remains one of the few places in Asia to have created a legal framework for same-sex couples, along with other countries like Thailand, Japan and South Korea. Countries in other parts of the world, such as Poland have also recently moved to give legal support to same-sex unions.
This proposal is the first of such steps taken pursuant to the Court’s ruling, and will be discussed in the legislative council of Hong Kong on Thursday.
Webinar: a discussion on two LGBTQ-related cases decided this term by the Supreme Court: United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor – 10 July2025
Join us for a discussion on two LGBTQ-related cases decided this term by the Supreme Court: United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor. UCLA Law Professor Cary Franklin, Faculty Director of the Williams Institute and constitutional law scholar, will analyze the decisions, explain their broader implications, and discuss what they mean for access to gender-affirming care, LGBTQ school curricula, and the legal landscape of LGBTQ rights moving forward.
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law is an academic research institute dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.
Georgia – Removal of gender and gender identity terminology from legislation
On 2 April 2025, the Georgian Parliament adopted amendments to more than a dozen laws, removing all references to “gender” and “gender identity.” This legislative rollback undermines the legal basis for gender equality, protection against gender-based violence, and recognition of diverse gender identities
A federal appeals court has ruled that a Christian-owned Washington spa’s practice of denying service to transgender women violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
In a decision filed May 25, a three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Washington State Human Rights Commission (HRC) was justified in enforcing the WLAD against Olympus Spa, a Korean spa owned by Christians. The spa was required to amend their policy and ensure equal access regardless of gender identity as part of a 2021 settlement, but filed a complaint against the HRC in 2022, arguing that allowing trans women who have not had bottom surgery to receive nude spa services alongside cisgender women violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, free expression, and freedom of association. But in a 2-1 decision last month, the panel sided with the state, upholding a district court’s decision to dismiss the spa’s complaint.
The court’s opinion, written by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, dismissed notions that the spa’s First Amendment rights had been violated when it was forced to amend its policy. The spa’s original policy allowing only “biological” women, McKeown wrote, violated the plain text of the WLAD, which bars discrimination based on “sexual orientation” — a term that also includes “gender expression or identity” under state law.
“The statutory language is undoubtedly expansive, and its definition of sexual orientation is bespoke,” McKeown wrote in her opinion. “But it is also unambiguous, and it applies to the Spa’s entrance policy.” The HRC did not compel Olympus’ owners to adopt different religious views, McKeown found, but generally required the spa to change its practice of refusing service to trans women without bottom surgery, because it “was unlawful under WLAD.”
McKeown also rejected the spa’s claim that it was legally an “intimate” and “expressive” institution, opining that their First Amendment arguments “would stretch the freedom of association beyond all existing bounds.” Although the spa’s owners “may have other avenues to challenge the enforcement action […] that relief cannot come from the First Amendment,” McKeown went on.
Advertisement
In his dissent, Judge Kenneth K. Lee claimed that the majority “ignores [WLAD’s] statutory structure and context” and that McKeown’s interpretation “defies common sense.” Lee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term in office, went on to accuse the HRC of “wield[ing] its power” against an immigrant-owned business “to advance its own political agenda” — specifically, the HRC’s public opposition to Trump’s anti-diversityexecutive orders. (Lee’s own comments about LGBTQ+ people caused a stir when Trump nominated him in 2019, particularly a Cornell Review article in which Lee claimed that “homosexuals generally are more promiscuous than heterosexuals” and that “one has to only abstain from drug-use and promiscuity” to avoid contracting HIV. Lee later said he regretted writing the article.)
The case now returns to the district court to issue a final ruling.
Olympus Spa was represented in the case by attorneys from the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), categorized as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and which received $159,000 in Paycheck Protection Plan loans from the first Trump administration in 2020. PJI chief counsel Kevin Snider told the Seattle Times in an emailed statement that the organization plans to ask the full Ninth Circuit to review the decision; PJI previously stated that they plan to take the case to the Supreme Court.
Olympus’ case stems from a 2020 complaint by a trans woman, Haven Wilvich, who said in an HRC filing that she was denied service at the spa because she had not had bottom surgery. Wilvich has not publicly commented on the court’s decision last month; in 2023, following coverage of Olympus’ lawsuit by right-wing media outlets, Wilvich told The Stranger she received numerous death threats and messages telling her to kill herself, and locked down her online presence to avoid being doxxed.
“It shouldn’t be the case that in order to make a complaint of human rights violations and a violation of Washington state law that you have to be publicly named in searchable documents,” Wilvich said at the time.
Samantha Riedel is a writer and editor whose work on transgender culture and politics has previously appeared in VICE, Bitch Magazine, and The Establishment. She lives in Massachusetts, where she is presently at work on her first manuscript. … Read More
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 