Indian court rules trans women are women and ‘legally entitled to recognition’
More: https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/06/26/india-trans-women-high-court-decision/
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
The court agreed that refusing service to trans women who had not had bottom surgery was unlawful under Washington State’s non-discrimination law.
June 16, 2025
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-diversity executive 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.)
Federal Appeals Court Says That Florida’s Drag Ban Is Likely Unconstitutional
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.
Get the best of what’s queer. Sign up for Them’s weekly newsletter here.
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
USA: Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for youth
POLICY NEWS Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for youth Today, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law banning access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Williams Institute research shows that an estimated 1.6 million people ages 13 and older in the U.S. identify as transgender. The decision impacts the 112,400 transgender youth ages 13-17 who live in Tennessee and 24 other states that have similar laws banning access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth.  While impacting thousands of transgender youth and their families, the decision does not affect access to care for the youth living in states that do not ban access to hormones and puberty blockers. Many of these states have shield laws that protect access to care for youth and their families and safeguard providers who offer care. These states could offer access to care for transgender youth living in states with bans who can travel to them. Research shows that these bans deny young people access to care endorsed by every major medical association in the U.S. and negatively impact providers. In response to a recent Williams Institute survey, 29% of providers in states without bans reported that they had received threats to their workplace related to the provision of gender-affirming care, and 26% had been personally threatened online. Over half (55%) of providers have experienced a recent increased demand for care among youth, and many reported long waitlists. Today’s decision upholds state laws that ban access to gender-affirming care for youth. However, it was decided on narrow grounds, which leaves open avenues to legally challenge other laws and policies that limit transgender people’s participation in areas such as the military, education, and health care. For example, the majority opinion leaves open the question of whether sufficient evidence of animus toward transgender people by the government could result in a different outcome. It also did not determine whether classifications based on transgender status are entitled to heightened scrutiny, allowing Equal Protection challenges to other forms of discrimination against transgender people to proceed. The Court’s decision extends only to laws that implicate both minors and medical care. The opinion also doesn’t impact other constitutional arguments, including the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s medical care, the responsibility to protect incarcerated transgender people, or the First Amendment rights to obtaining a valid passport and fully participating in public education. Additionally, Justice Alito stated in his concurring opinion that Bostock is now “entitled to the staunch protection we give statutory interpretation decisions,” so any efforts to overturn workplace nondiscrimination protections for transgender people are likely to fail. Notably, the Justices’ written opinions depart from language used in executive actions by the Trump administration, which denies the existence of transgender people or portrays them as trying to commit fraud in the military context. In its first sentence, the majority opinion cites the Williams Institute’s estimate of the transgender population and includes references that use respectful language, an marked departure from the administration’s rhetoric regarding transgender people. “Today’s decision will directly impact the health care decisions of thousands of transgender youth and their families,” said Christy Mallory, Interim Executive Director and Legal Director at the Williams Institute. “But based on research and the personal stories of transgender people, the Supreme Court affirmed that transgender people of all ages exist, they have experienced discrimination, and constitutional and other legal arguments remain available to challenge such discrimination.” |
 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. |
________________________________________________________
The US Supreme Court issued an opinion on Wednesday upholding a 2023 Tennessee law restricting minors’ access to gender affirming care in the state.
The 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, prohibits medical procedures that alter a minor’s hormonal balance, remove a minor’s sex organs, or otherwise change a minor’s physical appearance when undergone with purpose of enabling a minor to identify with an identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or treating discomfort from discordance between the minor’s assigned sex and asserted identity. The law emphasizes that it only prohibits the medical procedures when the purpose is for gender-affirming reasons.
Shortly before the law was supposed to take effect in 2023, three Tennessee families who have transgender children and one physician brought suit against the state of Tennessee. The plaintiffs argued that the Tennessee law violated their equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because the law classifies on the basis of sex and discriminates against transgender persons. The Biden Administration ended up joining the plaintiffs in their action, and the case later became known as US v. Skrmetti.
A district court originally blocked the law, calling it unconstitutional, but in a tight decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, allowing the law to become effective as proceedings continued. The Supreme Court approved the plaintiff’s writ of certiorari and, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the law. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion, which is joined in or concurred with by all of the conservative justices, states that the Court has decided this law sets age- and use-based limits on medical care and exercises the states’ authority to regulate medicine. Therefore, this law must be reviewed under rational basis review, which passes.
Chief Justice Roberts concludes his opinion with a statement on the Supreme Court’s role in policy debates in the US:
The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.
In a dissent joined by the other two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes that she wholly disagrees with the majority’s use of rational basis review to analyze this law. She states this law discriminates against transgender adolescents and should have been held to intermediate scrutiny for this reason. Justice Sotomayor warns of the dangers that leaving the rights of transgender persons in the hands of a “political whim.”
The decision comes amid the strongly polarized debate over transgender rights in the US after multiple states have enacted similar laws to SB1 and laws relating to the restriction of transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports.
The post US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors appeared first on JURIST – News.
Russia student fined for speech in Telegram chats
The Russian government fined a nineteen-year old college student in the Crimean city of Sevastopol roughly $1,300 Monday for allegedly “discrediting armed forces” and promoting “LGTBQA+ propaganda” on Telegram chat posts.
According to the city’s Interior Ministry, the student posted comments critical of the Russian military’s involvement in Ukraine and voiced support for homosexuality identity. In one post authorities cited as evidence him, the student allegedly wrote “I am 72 percent gay” along with the results from a joke-bot’s random assessment of his online activity. Another screenshot reveals a post calling to petition Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to create a “reservation of Russian slaves for residents of temporally occupied territories.”
Russia has labeled the LGBTQA+ movement as extremist and has been banned in Russia since 2023. Fines for “LGTBQA+ propaganda” are part of a continued crackdown on the LGTBQA+ community and amassed the Russian government around $314,000 in 2024. The suppressive action has targeted individuals and companies alike. Local businesses are also under threat. In May, a Saint Petersburg court fined a bookstore approximately $10,000 for selling books in which “signs of propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” were found.
The crackdown has resulted in more serious punishments as well: Earlier this month, a legal proceeding was initiated against a LGTBQA+ activist, and a resident of Tula Oblast Fedyainov was arrested for seven days for publishing LGTBQA+ symbols on social media site VKontakte between January 2021 and December 2022 — before the government began targeting LGBTQA+ content in 2023. In February, the first public sentence for LGTBQA+ involvement was issued.
The post Russia student fined for speech in Telegram chats appeared first on JURIST – News.
European Court of Human Rights rules Czech Republic violated trans rights with forced sterilisation
In a pivotal judgment delivered on 12 June 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found that the Czech Republic violates the rights of trans people by requiring forced sterilisation as a legal requirement for legal gender recognition.
Legal proceeding initiated against Russia activist amid LGBTQA+ crackdown
The Investigative Committee of Yaroslavl Oblast initiated a criminal proceeding on Thursday against Russian LGBTQA+ activist Yaroslav Sirotkin on the charges of participation in an “extremist organization,” according to local media.
According to the investigation, Sirotkin posted 14 social media posts and videos that included “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” between December 2023 and January 2024. The LGBTQA+ movement is identified as extremist and has been banned in Russia since 2023.
Sirotkin, who is considered to be a “foreign agent” by the government, left Russia in 2022. After arriving in Armenia, he opened a shelter for LGBTQ+ refugees from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus with another activist, Alexander Derrek. In 2024, Sirotkin was placed on a wanted list by Russian authorities.
Legal actions against Sirotkin are part of the larger anti-LGBTQA+ crackdown in Russia affecting both individuals and companies. In February, for instance, online platform Wattpad was fined 3.5 million rubles (approximately $44,000) for not deleting an LGBTQA+ novel. In May, an activist was also fined 2000 rubles (approximately $25) for a Pink Floyd emoji in her Telegram name.
In 2024, the fines for “propaganda of LGBTQA+ movement” totaled 25 million rubles (approximately $314,000): 71 citizens of Russia and other states and 20 judicial persons were fined, and at least four foreign nationals were deported. Recent LGBTQA+ activists affected are Nikolai Rodkin, against whom a similar proceeding of participating in an “extremist organization” was initiated, and Alexandra Kazantseva, who was placed on a wanted list in March.
In February, the first known sentence for LGBTQA+ involvement was issued when an imprisoned man was given a six-year extension on his sentence for “involving other prisoners in the LGBTQA+ movement.”
Some of the legal actions of the Russian government are countered by international bodies. In February, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which protects the right to expression, by blocking and fining LGBTQA+ activists. The court ordered financial compensation.
The post Legal proceeding initiated against Russia activist amid LGBTQA+ crackdown appeared first on JURIST – News.
Puerto Rico Supreme Court allows ‘X’ gender markers on birth certificates
| #RenewIESOGI: Join civil society organisations worldwide urging the UN Human Rights Council to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity |
| Dear all, In July 2025, the UN Human Rights Council will vote to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. From our records, you signed your organisation on the joint civil society organisations’ call from across the world to renew this vital mandate in 2019 and/or in 2022. Join us again! Some recommendations before signing: The link to sign on to the statement is at the bottom of the page (below the text of the statement)! Only organizations can sign the statement Organizations can only sign once Please ensure you sign on before Thursday, 19 June 2025 |
| We encourage you to share the link widely with your networks – support from all kinds of organisations is essential. Signatures from human rights organisations, groups working specifically on LGBT or LGBTI issues and allied organisations are welcome! If you are a network, please make sure to share it with your members and encourage them to sign on! Since its creation in 2016, the mandate has extensively documented discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. They sent over 171 communications documenting allegations of violations and carried out 10 country visits – engaging in constructive dialogue and assisting States to implement international human rights standards, as well as collaborating with UN mechanisms. However, violence and discrimination still persist worldwide, and it is essential that the mandate continues its work. In 2022, the renewal of this mandate was supported by 56 States from all regions of the globe, and by 1,256 civil society organisations from 149 States and territories. We count on your support to repeat this historic achievement! |
| And be heard at the United Nations: let’s #RenewIESOGI, together! In solidarity, Elise GOLAY – International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) |
| —– ESPAÑOL —– |
| #RenewIESOGI: Únase a organizaciones de la sociedad civil de todo el mundo para instar al Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU a renovar el mandato de le Experte Independiente sobre la violencia y la discriminación por motivos de orientación sexual e identidad de género |
| Estimades todes: En julio de 2025, el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas votará la renovación del mandato de le Experte Independiente sobre la orientación sexual y la identidad de género. Según nuestros registros, usted firmó la declaración conjunta de organizaciones de la sociedad civil de todo el mundo para renovar este mandato vital en 2019 y/o 2022. ¡Únase de nuevo a nosotres! Algunas recomendaciones antes de firmar: El enlace para firmar la declaración se encuentra al final de la página (debajo del texto de la declaración) Solo las organizaciones pueden firmar la declaración Las organizaciones sólo pueden firmar una sola vez Asegúrese de firmar antes del jueves 19 de junio de 2025 |
| Desde su creación en 2016, los titulares del mandato han documentado ampliamente la discriminación y la violencia por motivos de orientación sexual e identidad de género. Han enviado más de 171 comunicaciones en las que se documentan denuncias de violaciones y han realizado 10 visitas a países, en las que han entablado un diálogo constructivo y han ayudado a los Estados a aplicar las normas internacionales de derechos humanos, además de colaborar con los mecanismos de las Naciones Unidas. Sin embargo, la violencia y la discriminación siguen persistiendo en todo el mundo, por lo que es esencial que el mandato pueda continuar su labor. En 2022, la renovación de este mandato fue apoyada por 56 Estados de todas las regiones del mundo y por 1256 organizaciones de la sociedad civil de 149 Estados y territorios. ¡Contamos con su apoyo para repetir este logro histórico! |
| Y haga oír su voz en las Naciones Unidas: ¡renovemos juntes el mandato del IESOGI! #RenewIESOGI En solidaridad, Elise GOLAY – International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) |
| —– FRANÇAIS—– |
| #RenewIESOGI: Joignez-vous aux organisations de la société civile du monde entier qui appellent le Conseil des droits de l’Homme des Nations unies à renouveler le mandat de l’expert indépendant contre la violence et la discrimination fondées sur l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre. |
| Bonjour tout le monde, En juillet 2025, le Conseil des droits de l’Homme des Nations unies votera pour renouveler le mandat de l’Expert indépendant sur l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre. D’après nos archives, vous aviez signé la déclaration conjointe des organisations de la société civile du monde entier à renouveler ce mandat vital en 2019 et/ou en 2022. Rejoignez-nous à nouveau ! Quelques recommandations avant de signer: Le lien pour signer est au bas de la page (sous le texte de la déclaration) Seulement les organisations peuvent signer la déclaration Les organisations ne peuvent signer qu’une seule fois Veuillez signer avant jeudi 19 juin 2025 |
| Nous vous encourageons à partager le lien avec vos réseaux – le soutien de tous types d’organisations est essentiel. Les signatures d’organisations de droits humains, de groupes travaillant spécifiquement sur les questions LGBT ou LGBTI et d’organisations alliées sont les bienvenues ! Si vous êtes un réseau, veillez à partager ce lien avec vos membres et à les encourager à signer ! Depuis sa création en 2016, le mandat a largement documenté la discrimination et la violence fondées sur l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre. Les titulaires du mandat ont envoyé plus de 171 communications documentant des allégations de violations et effectué 10 visites de pays – engageant un dialogue constructif et soutenant les États à mettre en œuvre les normes internationales en matière de droits humains, ainsi qu’à collaborer avec les mécanismes de l’ONU. Cependant, la violence et la discrimination persistent dans le monde entier et il est essentiel que le mandat poursuive son travail. En 2022, le renouvellement de ce mandat a été soutenu par 56 États de toutes les régions du monde et par 1’256 organisations de la société civile de 149 États et territoires. Nous comptons sur votre soutien pour réitérer cet exploit historique ! |
| Et faites-vous entendre aux Nations unies : Ensemble, renouvelons le mandat ! #RenewIESOGI En toute solidarité, Elise GOLAY – International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) |
Greece – Council of State: Same-sex couples’ marriage with the right of adoption is constitutional
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 