Tag Archives: politics

ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II issues arrest warrants on gender grounds against girls, women and other persons non-conforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression

Leave a reply

ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II issues arrest warrants on gender grounds against girls, women and other persons non-conforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression

Today, 8 July 2025, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) has issued,  in the context of the Situation of Afghanistan, warrants of arrest for Mr Haibatullah Akhundzada, Supreme Leader of the Taliban, and Mr Abdul Hakim Haqqani, Chief Justice of the Taliban, who have exercised de facto authority in Afghanistan at least from 15 August 2021. 

The Chamber has found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Haibatullah Akhundzada and Mr Abdul Hakim Haqqani have committed by ordering, inducing or soliciting the crime against humanity of persecution, under article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute, on gender grounds against girls, women and other persons non-conforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression; and on political grounds against persons perceived as “allies of girls and women”. These crimes are believed to have been committed on the territory of Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power on 15 August 2021, and have continued until at least 20 January 2025. 

Pre-Trial Chamber II considered that the Taliban have implemented a governmental policy that resulted in severe violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of the civilian population of Afghanistan, in connection with conducts of murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and enforced disappearance. While the Taliban have imposed certain rules and prohibitions on the population as a whole, they have specifically targeted girls and women by reason of their gender, depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms. Specifically, the Taliban severely deprived, through decrees and edicts, girls and women of the rights to education, privacy and family life and the freedoms of movement, expression, thought, conscience and religion. In addition, other persons were targeted because certain expressions of sexuality and/or gender identity were regarded as inconsistent with the Taliban’s policy on gender. 

In assessing the evidence before it, the Chamber has taken into account the object and purpose of Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute. This provision reflects the Statute’s broader aim to protect civilian populations from serious and systemic violations of fundamental rights, particularly those targeting vulnerable groups. In this context, the Chamber considered that the protection of victims of such crimes – especially women and girls who are often disproportionately affected by gender-based persecution – is central to the provision’s purpose. The Chamber found that gender persecution encompasses not only direct acts of violence, but also systemic and institutionalised forms of harm, including the imposition of discriminatory societal norms.

Furthermore, the Chamber found that individuals perceived as opposing these policies, even passively or through omission, were also targeted by the Taliban. This included those described as “allies of girls and women”, who were viewed as political opponents. 

The Chamber has decided that the warrants will remain under seal at this stage, in order to protect victims and witnesses and safeguard the proceedings. Nevertheless, the Chamber considered that the conduct addressed is ongoing and that public awareness of the warrants may contribute to the prevention of the further commission of these crimes. Accordingly, the Chamber found that it is in the interests of justice to publicly disclose the existence of these warrants.

For further information, please contact Fadi El Abdallah, Spokesperson and Head of Public Affairs Unit, International Criminal Court, by telephone at: +31 (0)70 515-9152 or +31 (0)6 46448938 or by e-mail at: fadi.el-abdallah@icc-cpi.int

You can also follow the Court’s activities on Twitter/X, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Flickr

More: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-afghanistan-icc-pre-trial-chamber-ii-issues-arrest-warrants-haibatullah-akhundzada

The Brief – How Germany went from Pride to shaming diversity (Euractiv | THE BRIEF )

Leave a reply
The Brief – How Germany went from Pride to shaming diversity
Germany has become a less hospitable place for minorities, even if its conservative-leaning society was never the liberal paradise that swathes of Anglo millennials mistook it for after popping a pill at a smoke-filled Berlin nightclub.

And its former leader, Angela Merkel – who voted against same-sex marriage – was never the liberal icon that international media mistook her for after the devout Christian opened the borders to thousands of refugees as a humanitarian gesture.

But where the pragmatist Merkel merely slowed Germany’s social liberalisation, the accession of Friedrich Merz to the chancellery has seen it switch from first into reverse gear.

When it comes to social and diversity politics, the staunchly conservative chancellor and his centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have wasted no time in office marking their political territory.

Much of the controversy has centred around Berlin’s annual Pride parade, which the German parliament has marked since 2022 by flying the rainbow flag. Not this year: The new conservative president of the Bundestag, Julia Klöckner, a Merz ally, has halted the practice, citing concerns about political neutrality.

Shortly after, she prohibited the participation of the parliament’s queer staff network in the parade. In the latest upset, the Bundestag’s administration has ordered MPs to remove Pride flags from their window, with police sent out to enforce a mostly unenforced house rule, as revealed by Euractiv.

And it’s not just Klöckner: Merz himself has argued that Pride flags turn the Bundestag into a “circus tent” – somewhat unsurprisingly, after he had once answered a question on his stance on homosexuality with the words that it was a private matter “as long as it doesn’t affect children”. Merz’s education minister reportedly banned gender-inclusive language from her ministry’s communications. His interior minister has trained his crosshairs on liberalised naturalisation laws for foreigners.

This crackdown is certainly nowhere near Hungarian proportions, where officials have moved to outlaw Pride parades and queer freedom of expression. Participants in Berlin’s edition can still attend a typically raunchy public party, largely unbothered, followed by an equally raunchy after-party at (in some cases) publicly subsidised clubs.

But the CDU has signalled where its political priorities lie – and it’s at the expense of minorities.

It’s not difficult to find voices in the government who fear that this is not just a conservative pushback but a sinister political calculus.
Read more.

Russia court announces ‘LGTBQA+ propaganda’ case against bookstore

Leave a reply

Russia court announces ‘LGTBQA+ propaganda’ case against bookstore

A Saint Petersburg court announced a case Tuesday against the bookstore “Подписные издания” (Subscription Publications) on charges of “LGBTQA+ propaganda.” No information is available yet regarding the reasons for the charges.

On its website, the bookstore shares that it has been open since 1926, with photos that capture the involvement of the store  with the people of the cultural capital of Russia. Besides selling books, the bookstore has two cafes and a stationery line, hosts events, manages a children’s literature club, produces lists of children’s books and a literary journal, and publishes novels.

The bookstore was already fined 800,000 rubles (approximately $10,000) in May under the “LGBTQA+ propaganda” charges for selling books authored by Susan Sontag, known to defend women’s rights, journalists Valery Panyushkin and Sergey Parkhomenko, who are identified as “foreign agents,” and more. The court also demanded the removal of the aforementioned literature.

The charge of “LGBTQA+ propaganda” against the bookstore is the latest issue in the journal of human rights violations under Putin’s regime. After labeling the LGBTQA+ movement as “extremist” in 2023, the government dedicated a huge amount of resources to punishing anything that resembled it. Companies like Apple have been fined several times for failing to remove undesired content. Bookstores and publishers have been targets of searches, detention, and fines. LGBTQA+ activists have been fined for social media promotions, with at least one sentence being issued for “LGBTQA+ propaganda.” Fines are also given out for messages in Telegram chats, with some people even being detained for posts in Russian social media VKontakte.

On Wednesday, a woman in illegally annexed Crimea was fined 100,000 rubles (approximately $1300) under “LGBTQA+ propaganda” charges for a meme showing men in wedding dresses. The meme depicted men who say “let’s split the bill,” “I waited for you to make a first move,” “why should I be the one to invite [a girl] on a first day?,” and “prove to and show me that you need me” as men in wedding dresses, establishing a connection between the phrases and self emasculation.

The post Russia court announces ‘LGTBQA+ propaganda’ case against bookstore appeared first on JURIST – News.

Hong Kong government proposes to legally recognize same-sex couples registered abroad

Leave a reply

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.

The post Hong Kong government proposes to legally recognize same-sex couples registered abroad appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for youth

Leave a reply

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.”   Rectangle: Rounded Corners: Read the Decision
Alternate text
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.

Legal proceeding initiated against Russia activist amid LGBTQA+ crackdown

Leave a reply

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.

EU official condemns Hungary’s restrictions on LGBTQ+ content

Leave a reply

EU official condemns Hungary’s restrictions on LGBTQ+ content

The advocate general of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said Hungary infringed European law by restricting access to LGBTQ+ content in an advisory opinion published Thursday.

Tamara Ćapeta stated that Hungary has deviated from the EU’s values and recommended the CJEU find that the nation infringed Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU):

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

In 2021, the Hungarian government introduced legislative amendments that prohibited and restricted LGBTQ+ content that “portrays or promotes gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality.” The European Commission — the main executive body of the European Union (EU) — responded by bringing an infringement action against the country and requested the CJEU to announce the violation. The Hungarian government titled the legislative action “Act LXXIX (79) of 2021: adopting stricter measures against persons convicted of paedophilia and amending certain laws for the protection of children.”

Hungary’s amendments restrict the freedom to provide and receive services, which are granted through the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Articles 49 through 55 establish the right of establishment; Articles 56 to 62 establish the right to services. The amendments also allegedly breach EU directives on electronic commerce, services, audiovisual media and data protection.

Hungary was additionally said to have infringed Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). Allegations include infringement on the freedom of expression, freedom of information, the right to privacy and family life, the right to human dignity and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Ćapeta said that Hungary’s laws “are based on a value judgment that homosexual and non-cisgender life is not of equal value or status as heterosexual and cisgender life.”

Article 253 of the TFEU mandates that advocate generals “assist” the CJEU, directing them to act with “impartiality and independence.” However, their opinions are not legally binding.

In May, EU member states signed and published a declaration condemning Hungary’s crack down on the rights of LGBTQ+ people. On June 1, Budapest police justified banning a march through the strict laws, claiming the assembly resembled “Budapest Pride.”

The post EU official condemns Hungary’s restrictions on LGBTQ+ content appeared first on JURIST – News.

Hungary supreme court rules police ban of pride march unlawful

Leave a reply

Hungary supreme court rules police ban of pride march unlawful

The Hungarian Supreme Court ruled on Saturday that a police ban on the annual Budapest Pride march is unlawful since there was no legitimate goal behind the ban on the march.

The state, the defendants in this case, relied on a recent amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary to support their position to ban the Pride march. The defendants argued that the objective behind the ban was to protect children, echoing one of the provisions in the amendment that states all other interests and laws can be overruled in the name of protecting children. However, the court held that no evidence banning the Pride parade would protect children. Similar demonstrations had been allowed to take place in the past few weeks without police bans or interference, and it was not evident to the court how the Pride parade in particular endangered the safety of children. The case will not be referred to the European Court of Justice since the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

The controversial amendment was passed in mid-April of this year, effectively banning LGBTQ+ public events. The amendment to the law also denies gender identity, stating that sex changes are not recognized in Hungary to protect the stability of the family and to create an environment that is protective of children’s development.

In late March, thousands of people protested in Budapest against the amendment, but after its proposal by the national-conservative political party, Fidesz, it made its way to being passed.

Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws have also been at issue with the EU. As of last week, 20 of the EU’s 27 member states issued a joint declaration accusing Hungary of violating the EU’s fundamental values through these laws and policies. Furthermore, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Fidesz have been the subject of debate in the EU for allegedly violating the rule of law and the EU’s fundamental values.

The post Hungary supreme court rules police ban of pride march unlawful appeared first on JURIST – News.

Colombia urged to close gap between LGBT rights laws and lived realities amid rising violence

Leave a reply

Colombia urged to close gap between LGBT rights laws and lived realities amid rising violence

While Colombia has made notable progress in protecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and gender-diverse (LGBT) individuals, the country must urgently address widespread discrimination and violence still faced by these communities, a UN human rights expert has warned Friday.

The UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Graeme Reid, concluded a fact-finding mission across multiple Colombian cities. In his statement, Reid praised the government’s commitment to equality and its legal reforms, but emphasized the stark disconnect between institutional progress and the daily lived experiences of LGBT individuals.

“Despite these positive developments, many LGBT people continue to experience discrimination and violence in their daily lives,” Reid said. “This is particularly acute for trans women and for those who face intersecting forms of marginalization as migrants, Indigenous persons, youth, or persons with disabilities.”

Reid’s visit comes at a time when other international bodies are raising serious concerns about the broader human rights situation in Colombia. A recent report from the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances revealed that enforced disappearances remain a systemic issue—especially in regions under the control of illegal armed groups—often affecting migrants, activists, and community leaders, including LGBT advocates.

Similarly, a November 2024 report by ABColombia and Colombian grassroots organizations shed light on the disproportionate violence faced by women, girls, and the LGBTQI+ community. The report highlighted how decades of conflict have embedded gender-based violence into everyday life, with Afro-Colombian and Indigenous women particularly affected. It noted the use of extreme cruelty in attacks on LGBT individuals and the alarming number of women human rights defenders killed in recent years.

“Violence against those who stand up for equality—including LGBT advocates—is not only a tragedy but a significant barrier to progress,” Reid said. He underscored the importance of comprehensive data collection, civil society collaboration, and policies that go beyond legislation to address structural inequality and social stigma.

Reid’s full findings will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council in June 2026.

The post Colombia urged to close gap between LGBT rights laws and lived realities amid rising violence appeared first on JURIST – News.

Advocacy group says major social media platforms failing LGBTQ+ users

Leave a reply

Advocacy group says major social media platforms failing LGBTQ+ users

Major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter), are failing to adequately protect LGBTQ+ users from hate, harassment, and disinformation, according to the 2025 Social Media Safety Index released Tuesday by the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD.

The annual report’s fifth edition, which evaluates the performance of major platforms on 14 LGBTQ-specific safety indicators and remains the most comprehensive benchmark of LGBTQ+ safety across major digital platforms, warns that platforms are not only neglecting their responsibilities but, in some cases, have actively weakened existing safety protocols. GLAAD specifically cited Meta’s Instagram and Facebook, YouTube, and X for draconian policy reversals that enable the spread of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and contribute to real-world harms.

In the report’s foreword, GLAAD president Sarah Kate Ellis said: “In many cases, platforms are inviting harm … They are prioritizing engagement and controversy over safety, especially for trans and nonbinary communities.”

TikTok received the highest score among evaluated platforms but still failed to provide full transparency or robust user control regarding LGBTQ content and privacy. X received the lowest score (just 30 out of 100) due to its reliance on self-reporting, limited policy enforcement, and lack of workforce diversity disclosures.

GLAAD emphasized that several companies rolled back policies that once protected LGBTQ+ users from targeted misgendering, deadnaming, and “conversion therapy” content. Meta, in particular, updated its “Hateful Conduct” policy to allow harmful rhetoric under the guise of political or religious expression, a move GLAAD condemned as “dangerous and dehumanizing.” YouTube also quietly removed “gender identity and expression” from its hate speech policy without public explanation.

The report underscored how such policy changes correlate with a documented rise in online hate and disinformation targeting LGBTQ+ individuals. GLAAD warned that these trends often lead to “offline consequences,” including violence and mental health impacts for marginalized users. The Index further found that legitimate LGBTQ+ content continues to be disproportionately suppressed through wrongful account removals, demonetization, and shadow-banning.

In response, GLAAD urged tech companies to restore and strengthen LGBTQ safety policies, improve moderator training across all languages and cultural contexts, and publish detailed enforcement and diversity data. The organization also called for collaboration with independent researchers to enhance transparency and accountability.

“Social media should be a space for connection and community, not a driver of discrimination,” Ellis said. “Platforms must act now to reverse course and prioritize the dignity, safety, and rights of LGBTQ people.”

With mounting attacks on LGBTQ+ human rights across the world, the LGBTQ+ community remains vulnerable. In April, Hungary’s National Assembly passed an amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary that bans LGBTQ+ public events. In February, Amnesty International denounced Tunisian authorities’ increased arrests of LGBTI individuals. The organization reported that at least 84 individuals, mostly gay men and transgender women, have been arrested since September 2024.

The post Advocacy group says major social media platforms failing LGBTQ+ users appeared first on JURIST – News.