Insights
Between Repression and Recognition. Rights in Retrograde, vol. 7
Region(s)
TOPIC(s)
Type
Commentary
Author(s)
Publish Date
Share
Across the world, laws and court rulings continue to define the everyday realities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) people. In recent months, governments have intensified efforts to regulate identity and expression, turning anxieties about gender and sexuality into legal doctrine. At the same time, courts in multiple regions have reaffirmed dignity, equality, and the right to family recognition.
This edition of Rights in Retrograde, covering the period from July 19 to November 12, 2025, traces that widening divide. As legislatures entrench exclusion, judiciaries are asserting inclusion—reminding states that equality is not optional but constitutional. The resulting landscape is one of tension and resilience, where repression and recognition coexist, shaping the state of LGBTIQ people’s rights in 2025.
Entrenching Binaries, Inhibiting Self-Determination
The use of constitutional law to impose rigid, binary definitions of sex intensified during this period. In Slovakia, a sweeping amendment adopted on October 1 redefined the Constitution to “recognize only the sex of man and woman,” banned same-sex adoption, and restricted sexuality education—anchoring a binary view of sex and family at the highest legal level. In Vanuatu, a Supreme Court ruling on October 16 cleared the way for the promulgation of the Ninth Constitutional Amendment, which limits fundamental rights to individuals “male and female at birth.” The Court’s decision effectively endorsed one of the most explicit anti-gender provisions in the Pacific.
These countries follow the example of Hungary, which in April adopted the Fifteenth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, enshrining a male/female binary and codifying the prohibition of legal gender recognition. Together, these measures show how constitutional law is being weaponized to redefine equality itself—locking exclusion into the highest legal frameworks and ensuring its effects endure long after the current political moment has passed.
In Peru, in early October, the Women and Family Commission approved and advanced a bill to replace the current Equal Opportunities Law with new legislation that removes all references to “gender” and narrows anti-discrimination protections to a strictly biological definition of sex. The bill also removes references to international human rights treaties in defining discrimination (art. 2), weakening the link between Peruvian law and international human rights standards on gender.
Rising political opposition to gender diversity is surfacing even in nations that have advanced in their models of legal recognition and inclusion for trans people. In Germany, the far-right AfD party, which continues to grow in popularity, introduced a motion on September 9 calling for the repeal of the recently enacted Self-Determination Act, arguing that it endangers children and “women” (understood to mean cisgender women). Though symbolic, the motion disregards the safety and rights of trans people and mainstreams a narrative that portrays self-determined legal gender recognition as reckless and illegitimate, despite over a decade of evidence of its benefits.
The only jurisdiction Outright identified that expanded access to legal gender recognition during this period was the tiny U.S. Virgin Islands, a territory in the Caribbean with a population of just over 100,000 people. Its Executive Order No. 543-2025, issued on October 15, allows gender marker changes on official documents and replaces the term “sex” with “gender” across administrative forms, signaling a commitment to self-determination and bodily autonomy. In a year dominated by regressive legislation across the United States, this measure stands out as a rare gesture of progress and dignity.
Criminalizing Sex, Gender, and Speech
Across several regions, criminal law continues to be used to silence LGBTIQ people and those who defend them. In Burkina Faso, the transitional parliament unanimously passed Article 210-3 of the Personal and Family Code in late October, criminalizing the “promotion” of “homosexual practices” with penalties of two to five years’ imprisonment, heavy fines, and deportation for foreign nationals. Broad and vaguely worded, the provision could be used to prosecute private relationships, social gatherings, health campaigns, or human rights advocacy.
In Indonesia, authorities publicly caned two young men in Aceh with 80 strokes each after a Shariah court convicted them for “hugging and kissing” in a park—a form of corporal punishment that international human rights bodies have found to constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and in some cases to amount to torture.
In Türkiye, a leaked government proposal known as the “11th Judicial Package” revealed plans to criminalize consensual same-sex conduct, gender nonconformity, and even advocacy for gender diversity. The draft would punish anyone who “encourages or promotes attitudes contrary to the innate biological sex” with up to three years in prison, while also criminalizing the provision of gender-affirming health care to trans people without court authorization. It raises the minimum age for legal gender recognition to 25 and reinstates sterilization requirements. Alarmingly, the draft law permits “mandatory medical interventions” on intersex children—effectively legalizing intersex genital mutilation.
Meanwhile, Russia adopted new online censorship measures that impose fines on people searching for content designated “extremist.” Given that the “international LGBT movement” is defined as extremist in Russia, the law extends the state’s campaign against queer expression, criminalizing access to information and deepening the climate of fear and self-censorship.
In Kazakhstan, the lower house of parliament passed a bill banning “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” online, in the media, and across educational and cultural platforms, imposing fines for violators and up to ten days in jail for repeat offenders. The legislation, which mirrors similar laws in Russia, Georgia, and Hungary, passed unanimously in a chamber dominated by pro-government parties and now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to be approved. Because the text will only be made public after the vote, activists warn that the process lacks transparency and risks sharply restricting freedom of expression and access to information. According to a joint statement by seven human rights groups, including the International Partnership for Human Rights, the bill’s provisions would blatantly violate Kazakhstan’s international human rights obligations and further endanger LGBTIQ people in the country.
The developments in Türkiye, Russia, and Kazakhstan reflect a shift toward pre-emptive criminalization—where laws are designed not merely to punish specific acts but to suppress identity, expression, and community solidarity before it can even take shape.
Restricting Gender-Affirming Care
Efforts to restrict gender-affirming health care have multiplied. In Peru, on September 3, an evangelical congressmember introduced a bill seeking to criminalize gender-affirming health care and social transition for minors. The proposal would ban puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for anyone under 18, impose prison sentences of at least five years on professionals who provide such support, and criminalize teachers who respect students’ self-determined gender identities. But since 2016, national health guidelines have established that gender-affirming medical interventions are provided only for adults, following evaluation and informed consent (RM N° 980-2016-MINSA). The recent legislative proposal, rather than addressing any regulatory gap, introduces criminal liability in a context where the provision of care is already restricted. The proposal emerged alongside broader legislative efforts to dismantle gender equality frameworks in Peru, described above.
In Italy, the Council of Ministers approved a draft law in August 2025 to restrict puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, create a national pediatric ethics committee, and establish a centralized patient registry—steps that, while presented as safeguards, effectively impose new layers of control and delay access to care.
Naming Anti-Intersex Abuses, Promoting Redress
Legal restrictions on trans people’s rights often also harm intersex people, either intentionally or inadvertently. Both groups challenge rigid, binary definitions of sex that these measures seek to enforce. When laws or policies define sex as strictly male or female, they not only erase gender diversity but also deny recognition and bodily autonomy to intersex people, reinforcing the same ideology of compulsory classification. Meanwhile, many laws restricting trans people’s access to health care contain a problematic “intersex exception,” permitting or even mandating intersex genital mutilation and other medical interventions in order to mold healthy babies’ bodies into a binary.
Yet amid the backlash, intersex people’s rights gained some momentum. This period marked unprecedented visibility and momentum for intersex people’s rights at the national, regional, and global levels. In Africa, in late July, the Government of Zimbabwe said it would undertake a legal reform process to formally recognize and protect intersex people. The commitment follows Zimbabwe’s acceptance of a Universal Periodic Review recommendation in 2022 to “[p]rotect intersex minors from non-consensual surgeries and violations of bodily integrity.”
In the Americas, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued a statement on October 24 urging States to end non-consensual surgeries and medical interventions on intersex children, describing them as medical violence and calling for “comprehensive reparations” for survivors. Beyond its immediate advocacy impact, the statement strengthens the normative foundation for strategic litigation within the regional system.
The IACHR statement echoed findings from a landmark report on discrimination and violence against intersex people issued by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on August 8. The report calls on States to prohibit medically unnecessary interventions on intersex children and to establish independent oversight mechanisms, while also urging the inclusion of sex characteristics in anti-discrimination laws—aligning international standards with emerging global norms and offering lawmakers a clear blueprint for reform.
Achieving Recognition Through the Courts
At a time when legislative and executive powers increasingly serve as vehicles for regression, courts around the world continue to act as crucial safeguards for equality and dignity. Through principled judgments and courageous plaintiffs, they remind states that constitutional guarantees are not symbolic—they are enforceable promises of justice.
In the Caribbean, Saint Lucia delivered one of the year’s most significant human rights victories. On October 29, its High Court struck down Sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Code, decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults. The ruling declared these colonial-era provisions unconstitutional, affirming that criminalization violates the rights to privacy, equality, and non-discrimination. The judgment, in a case initiated by local advocates and supported by regional networks, marks a watershed for the Eastern Caribbean and strengthens the regional momentum toward decriminalization, following similar rulings in Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Barbados, and Dominica over the past four years.
In Colombia, the Constitutional Court ordered the Antioqueña volleyball league to reinstate trans women athletes, ruling that their exclusion based solely on sex assigned at birth violated fundamental rights to dignity and equality. The Court emphasized that no scientific evidence supports claims of inherent advantage and directed sports authorities to eliminate discriminatory practices. In Chile, a criminal court issued the country’s first conviction for lesbophobic femicide, applying Article 390 ter of the Penal Code, which recognizes killings motivated by sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression as aggravated femicides. The Chilean LGBTIQ organization Movilh, which represented the victim’s family, described the ruling as a milestone for the rights of women with diverse sexual orientations and gender expressions. It takes a historic step toward acknowledging the full spectrum of gender-based violence.
Across Africa and Europe, judiciaries also defied restrictive political headwinds. In Kenya, the Eldoret High Court ruled that transgender people must be legally recognized, ordering authorities to end arbitrary detention and forced medical examinations. In the same period, a district court in Lithuania recognized a same-sex couple as a legal family for the first time, illustrating how lower courts can expand relationship rights even where national legislation remains restrictive.
In the United Kingdom, Judge Victoria McCloud, the country’s first trans judge, brought a case before the European Court of Human Rights challenging the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that excluded trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates from the legal definition of “woman.” Her petition underscores how individuals are turning to supranational courts to defend equality when domestic systems falter.
Momentum also continued in Asia. In Hong Kong, in a landmark case, a judge ruled to recognize a lesbian couple as the parents of their child born through in vitro fertilization. In Japan, the Sapporo Family Court declared as unconstitutional the requirement for trans people to undergo surgery or take hormones to alter the appearance of their genitals in order to change their legal gender markers. This decision builds national momentum for legal gender recognition since the Supreme Court struck down the sterilization requirement in 2023.
In India, courts pressed state institutions to move beyond symbolic commitments and implement concrete measures for inclusion. The Delhi High Court questioned the government over delays in extending public employment reservation benefits to transgender people, directing authorities to take immediate steps to comply with existing equality obligations. In Kerala, the High Court urged the Bar Council of India to introduce reserved seats for transgender students in law colleges, emphasizing that access to professional education is central to dismantling systemic exclusion.
Taken together, these cases illustrate that while reactionary forces seek to curtail equality through lawmaking, courts remain the counterbalance—spaces where universal rights are reasserted, constitutions reinterpreted, and dignity restored.
Conclusion: Between Regression and Recognition
This period reveals a world moving in opposite directions: as some governments seek to legislate erasure, others reaffirm the values of equality and human dignity. The contrast makes clear a crucial truth—that progress is not linear but cyclical, sustained through resistance, documentation, and solidarity.
The backlash against LGBTIQ people’s rights is not only about law and politics but also about who is allowed to exist openly in society. Even amid repression, advocates continue to document abuses, challenge discriminatory measures, and build cross-border alliances that defend civic space. These efforts underscore that rights are not granted from above but secured through sustained collective action. The struggle today is to ensure that diversity remains visible and valued in public life—affirming that democracy is strengthened, not threatened, by plural identities—and that dignity and equality remain non-negotiable.
Take Action
When you support our research, you support a growing global movement and celebrate LGBTIQ lives everywhere.
Donate Now