Interactive Map
A Year in Attacks on Trans, Intersex, and Nonbinary People’s Human Rights
Learn MoreIntroduction
2025 was a year that saw an escalation of widespread attacks on the human rights of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people. Drawing from our report, A Year in Attacks on Trans, Nonbinary, and Intersex People’s Human Rights, this interactive map visualizes the alarming escalation of laws and policies targeting trans, nonbinary, and intersex people worldwide in 2025. Following a range of policy shifts from bans on gender-affirming health care to constitutional reforms erasing gender diversity from legal frameworks, this map tracks restrictive measures country by country.
These attacks, fueled by anti-gender narratives gaining global traction after the 2024 U.S. election, expose a coordinated rollback of hard-won human rights. Each datapoint offers critical context, highlighting how discriminatory laws and rhetoric undermine equality, bodily autonomy, and dignity.
Explore the map to uncover global trends, regional patterns, and the far-reaching impact of these measures. Together, this human rights data underscores the urgent need for LGBTIQ advocacy and solidarity to advance global equality and protect the rights of all people.
Where Are Trans, Nonbinary, and Intersex People’s Right Under Attack?
Albania
On January 29, 2025, members of the Democratic Party—a party with a record of opposing LGBTIQ people’s rights, and the second largest party in Parliament—registered Amendment No. 377 to Law No. 10129/2009, “On Civil Registry.” The proposal would codify that “in the Republic of Albania, under this law, there are only two human genders: male and female, and the legally assigned gender at birth remains unchangeable.” If adopted, the amendment would effectively ban legal gender recognition for trans and intersex people. Albania is already one of the few European countries in which there is no process to change one’s legal gender marker.
ILGA-Europe notes that the proposal “would create no added benefit or improvement of rights for anyone, and would infringe on the rights of trans and intersex people as protected by European human rights standards, including significant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” The report further highlights that “this law was submitted nine days after Trump’s inauguration speech in which he stated ‘As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female,’” framing the initiative as part of “a new transnational impetus that aims to deny the existence of trans people and use this as an excuse to remove protections against discrimination and legislation and policy designed to improve the dignity and wellbeing of trans people and their access to fundamental rights.
Argentina
Argentina was the first country to establish legal gender recognition based on self-determination. The pioneering 2012 Gender Identity Law (Law 26.743) recognizes every person’s right to have their self-perceived gender legally acknowledged and to access gender-affirming health care without prior judicial or medical approval. It guarantees the right to amend name and gender markers in all official documents through a simple administrative procedure and mandates public and private health systems to provide comprehensive gender-affirming care.
On February 6, President Javier Milei issued two Decrees of Necessity and Urgency (DNUs) using delegated legislative powers granted by Congress. DNU 61/2025 introduces new restrictions on trans people deprived of liberty, requiring prison authorities to determine placement based on the sex registered at the time of the alleged offense rather than the person’s legally recognized gender identity. Although the decree does not formally amend any previous law, it overturns existing administrative practice derived from the 2012 Gender Identity Law. In practice, this means that trans women—people assigned male at birth but legally registered as female—can now be placed or kept in men’s prisons if their alleged offense occurred before their legal gender change, and that transfers to women’s facilities may be denied whenever authorities invoke “security” considerations, even when gender recognition has been granted under national law.
DNU 62/2025 modifies Article 11 of the 2012 Gender Identity Law to prohibit gender-affirming health care for individuals under the age of 18. The measure was widely criticized by human rights organizations, medical associations, and opposition legislators, who argue that it violates constitutional and international human rights obligations and represents an overreach of executive power. Shortly afterward, the Federación Argentina LGBT (FALGBT) and the Asociación de Travestis, Transexuales y Transgéneros de Argentina (ATTTA), with support from the Defensoría LGBT de Paraná, filed a lawsuit on behalf of a trans adolescent in Entre Ríos whose gender-affirming treatment had been suspended.
On July 14, deputy Gerardo Milman of Republican Proposal—a party within the governing coalition—together with Lilia Lemoine and Carlos Zapata of the ruling party La Libertad Avanza, introduced Bill 3736-D-2025, “Changes to the Limits of the Role of the State in Relation to the Sovereignty of Individuals Over Their Own Bodies,“ which proposes a sweeping reform of the Gender Identity Law. The bill would eliminate public and mandatory health coverage for gender-affirming care, prohibit hormone treatment and surgeries for minors, and require parental consent and an interdisciplinary evaluation for legal gender recognition for anyone under 18. It would also remove the obligation for institutions to use lived names and ban state promotion of gender diversity content in education.
Human rights groups and trans-led organizations have strongly opposed the bill, warning that it would dismantle the Gender Identity Law’s pioneering framework and reintroduce pathologizing requirements that had been deliberately removed. Activists argue that these changes would force trans people, particularly youth, back into medical and judicial gatekeeping and undermine over a decade of progress in rights recognition.
Testimony from Alba Rueda, Argentina
It is urgent that we create greater international alliances to defend the people of our community. These attacks are not only happening in Argentina, but are growing globally. We have to stand together, we have to take care of each other and defend ourselves against these attacks.
Testimonies from trans people and activists were collected in video interviews with Outright International in September and October 2025. They have been summarized and lightly edited for clarity.
Trans exclusionary discourse has been part of Milei’s campaign and presidency. Among the first steps he took as president was to close the Ministry of Women, Gender, and Diversity, end diversity policies, and revoke the national government's support for the trans population in Argentina. He fired and dismissed trans people from their jobs. He stopped complying with hiring requirements and monitoring how many trans people remained working. Trans people were not considered suitable for public service.
And finally, the most serious thing he did was to block access to programs for the trans population. The trans population in Argentina, in Latin America, and for the most part globally, is a population impoverished by discrimination. We in Argentina had several social programs that provided financial support to the transgender population. It was a very small amount, but at least it allowed them to buy the most basic food. Now, many trans people will be left behind.
Milei also ensured that people under the age of 18 could not access [affirming] health treatments.. Another decree that he also signed on the same day was a decree to prohibit transgender prisoners from changing their documents within the prison system.
The Gender Identity Law says that transgender people have the right to be recognized by our name in all areas, and it explicitly states this in both private and public spheres. Milei has come out against this law. If a proposed new law is passed, neither the state, nor private companies, nor public companies will have the obligation to recognize my name or the gender identity of individuals.
A recent report providing a year-on-year comparison of cases of violence against the transgender community states that attacks on the LGBT community in large cities, especially Buenos Aires, increased by up to 70%. And most of these attacks are against transgender women, especially transvestis. On a personal level, on social media, every time I express myself, I receive attacks. Many of my friends have also been attacked – physical attacks as well as verbal attacks.
There is a discourse that encourages these positions. All of this follows the narratives of the United States. For example, after Trump took office, a week later, at the Davos conference, Milei took the floor and directly associated gender perspective with pedophilia. And that is one of the issues that I think is at the heart of the situation. They really try to copy, and not only with regard to Trump in the United States, but also the extreme right globally.
On February 1, the trans and non-binary community called for a mass march to protest against fascism, and it was the first march that used the term “fascism” to describe Milei’s position. It mobilized almost a million people. There were thousands and thousands of people.
It is urgent that we create greater international alliances to defend the people of our community. These attacks are not only happening in Argentina, but are growing globally. We have to stand together, we have to take care of each other and defend ourselves against these attacks.
Chile
On May 15, Chile’s Chamber of Deputies approved the final report of Special Investigative Commission No. 57 (CEI 57). The commission had been established in July 2024 at the request of 74 members of the Chamber of Deputies “to gather information on the actions of several government entities—including the Ministries of Health, Social Development, and Education, as well as the Public Health Institute and the National Health Services Supply Center—in connection with therapies and health, psychological, educational, relational, social, and judicial support programs for individuals whose gender identity does not correspond to their registered sex or name.”
Drawing inspiration from the UK’s Cass Review—a 2024 government-commissioned report on gender-affirming care for minors that has been widely criticized by academic sectors for methodological flaws and for pathologizing gender diversity—the Chilean commission’s report framed trans and gender-diverse youth in similarly medicalized terms. It emphasized perceived risks of social transition and puberty suppression and argued that gender-affirming care is ideologically driven rather than evidence-based.
The commission’s conclusions portray gender-affirming initiatives as a threat to children’s development and the exercise of parental authority. It calls for the elimination of the Program for Gender Identity Support (Programa de Apoyo a la Identidad de Género, PAIG)—a psychosocial initiative created under the 2018 Gender Identity Law to accompany children and adolescents whose gender identity does not align with their registered sex—and for the repeal of education guidelines that allow trans students to use their lived names in schools. The report further recommends banning hormonal treatments for minors, auditing hospitals and educational programs that apply gender-affirmative approaches, and pursuing disciplinary or even criminal action against professionals involved in what it describes as “prohibited interventions.” Health authorities, however, have clarified that the PAIG does not include hormonal or surgical treatments and that its purpose is strictly psychosocial—providing counseling and family support within an affirming framework.
Georgia
On April 2, 2025, Georgia adopted Law No. 428, formally titled the “Law on Equality between Women and Men,” replacing the former Law on Gender Equality of 2010. The reform systematically removes the term “gender” from national legislation, replacing “gender equality” with “equality between women and men” across at least fifteen statutes, including the Labour Code, the Law on Health Care, the Law on Civil Service, and the Law on General Education. It also repeals Article 3(1)(a) of the previous Law on Gender Equality, which had defined “gender identity” as a protected characteristic. No equivalent provision was introduced in the new law, effectively deleting the concept from the legal framework. As a result, equality protections in Georgia are now limited to biological sex, excluding recognition of trans, nonbinary, and some intersex persons.
These amendments represent a significant regression for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people in Georgia. By redefining equality strictly in terms of “women and men,” the reform excludes those who do not fit within a binary framework from legal recognition and protection against discrimination. It also risks narrowing future public policies on equality and gender-based violence to a sex-based approach, undermining comprehensive protections and impeding Georgia’s alignment with European human rights standards.
Germany
Germany’s Self-Determination Act (SBGG), in force since November 2024, allows adults and minors aged 14 and older—with parental consent or authorization from a family court—to change their legal gender marker and first name by simple declaration at the registry office, without any medical assessments or court proceedings. This law replaced the Transsexuals Act (TSG) of 1980, which required applicants to obtain two expert psychiatric evaluations, undergo a court process, and often present a medical diagnosis before being allowed to change their documents.
The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) introduced a parliamentary motion on September 9, 2025. Antrag 21/1547, “Repeal the law on self-determination with regard to gender registration – restore legal clarity and protection for vulnerable groups such as women and young people,” calls for the repeal of the Self-Determination Act. Unlike a formal bill, this was a resolution without immediate legal effect, aimed at signaling political opposition and forcing debate in the Bundestag. In its motion, AfD argued that the law has led to a disproportionate rise in applications, particularly among adolescents, and criticized the absence of standardized counseling, diagnostic requirements, or waiting periods. It framed the law as endangering children and young people, undermining women’s spaces and shelters, and threatening fairness in women’s sports. AfD further claimed that the repeal of mandatory psychological evaluation deprives minors of necessary therapeutic support.
As of October 2025, the motion has not been scheduled for debate or vote in Parliament. Civil society groups, including the LSVD (Federation Queer Diversity), the Women’s Shelter Coordination Office (FHK), the Federal Association of Trans*, and the Lambda Youth Network, issued a joint statement denouncing the AfD’s proposal as a “systematic attack on the hard-won Self-Determination Act,” and warning that human rights “can only be preserved if they are defended day after day.
Hungary
Hungary has become a central hub of anti-trans policymaking in Europe. On April 14, 2025, the Hungarian Parliament—dominated by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz–KDNP supermajority—rushed through the Fifteenth Amendment to the Fundamental Law without public debate. The Fifteenth Amendment, adopted in a single session and signed by the president the same day, introduced explicit constitutional provisions defining sex as immutable and strictly binary.
The Fifteenth Amendment represented the constitutional culmination of a legal strategy that began in 2020, when Hungary first prohibited legal gender recognition by defining “sex” in civil registries as “sex at birth.” It elevated this prohibition to constitutional status, embedding a rigid binary and religious notion of sex into the country’s legal order and closing any remaining path for recognition or reform.
The amendment modified Article L(1), which previously read: “Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and the family as the basis for the survival of the nation.” Article L(1) now reads: “Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and the family as the basis for the survival of the nation. A person is either male or female. The mother shall be a woman, the father shall be a man.”
The amendment also replaced Article XVI(1), which formerly stated: “Every child shall have the right to the protection and care necessary for his or her proper physical, mental and moral development.” The new text reads: “Every child shall have the right to the protection and care necessary for his or her proper physical, mental and moral development. This right shall take precedence over all other fundamental rights, with the exception of the right to life. Hungary shall protect children’s right to a self-identity corresponding to their sex at birth, and shall ensure an upbringing in accordance with the values based on the constitutional identity and Christian culture of our country.”
By reframing children’s rights in this way, the government situates “protection” of minors within an ideological framework that privileges birth-assigned sex and Christian cultural identity. The emphasis on “self-identity corresponding to sex at birth” constructs gender diversity as inherently deviant and intersex people as nonexistent, and positions the state as the guardian of a fixed moral and biological order.
Significantly, the Fifteenth Amendment also codifies a constitutional ban on legal gender recognition. The official explanatory note to Bill T/11152—the legislative proposal adopted as the Fifteenth Amendment—states: “The Hungarian legal system does not recognise any change of sex at birth, thereby preserving the stability of the institution of family and the security of the social order.” In effect, this clause eliminates any possibility of amending civil records or legal documents to reflect a gender different from that assigned at birth, embedding state-mandated misidentification into the constitutional framework. On the same date, Bill T/11153, adopted alongside the constitutional reform, removes “gender identity” from the list of protected grounds in Hungary’s Equal Treatment Act, effectively stripping trans people of legal protection against discrimination.
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee condemned the Fifteenth Amendment as “a significant escalation in the government’s efforts to suppress dissent and weaken human rights protection.” In its assessment, the organization warned that the reform “further entrenches discrimination against transgender people by constitutionally prohibiting legal gender recognition” and called it a direct violation of Hungary’s obligations under EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee noted that the amendment contradicts a recent Court of Justice of the European Union ruling (C-247/23, 13 March 2025), which affirmed that EU Member States must allow individuals to change gender markers as part of their right to data protection and personal identity.
By embedding this ideology into the Fundamental Law, Hungary has institutionalized systemic discrimination against trans and intersex people, transforming political rhetoric into constitutional doctrine. The Fifteenth Amendment thus represents one of the most sweeping codifications of anti-gender ideology in Europe—one that not only erases legal gender recognition but seeks to define humanity itself within immutable biological and theological boundaries.
Italy
In August 2025, the Council of Ministers (Italian cabinet) approved a draft law introducing new restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for minors. The proposal would curtail access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for those under 18, require interim authorization from a national pediatric ethics committee until the Ministry of Health issues formal protocols, and establish a centralized registry under the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) to monitor prescriptions and patient histories. The proposal has not yet been debated in Parliament.
By layering national committees, mandatory protocols, and centralized documentation, the measure creates what critics describe as a bureaucratic maze—delaying access, extending waiting periods, and placing additional burdens on adolescents and their families at a critical stage of care.
Netherlands
Since 2014, transgender people in the Netherlands aged 16 and older have been able to change their legal gender markers. While surgery or a medical diagnosis is not required, the process is not yet fully based on self-identification as applicants need to provide a statement from a qualified expert confirming that they have a lasting conviction of identifying as another gender. For those under 16, the law does not provide a standard procedure, though courts may authorize changes in exceptional cases. The 2021 draft bill 35825 sought to simplify and expand this framework by removing the minimum age of 16 and eliminating the expert statement requirement, allowing any person to change their legal gender marker through a simple declaration.
However, on July 2, 2025, State Secretary for Legal Protection Teun Struycken officially withdrew the bill following repeated requests from Parliament. The withdrawal marked a significant reversal in the country’s ongoing transgender law reform process, halting an initiative that had aimed to strengthen the principle of self-determination in legal gender recognition.
Advocates for trans people’s rights and dignity described the withdrawal as a major setback, saying it abandons young trans people at a critical moment. Transgender Network Netherlands called the government’s about-face “appalling,” especially given the substantial parliamentary support for earlier drafts of the bill, based on recognition that it constituted an advance toward a self-determination model. The network argued that the removal of expert evaluation and the reduction or removal of age minimums are essential to respect trans people’s dignity and autonomy.
Testimony from Dinah de Riquet Bons, Netherlands
[At schools], it has become more and more in fashion to say, like, these trans people, let's bully them. I think that something which we will see in the future, in the upcoming years, [will be] that you have kids that are booted off school, or don't want to go anymore, and until now, that is something that has not been the case in the Netherlands that much.
Testimonies from trans people and activists were collected in video interviews with Outright International in September and October 2025. They have been summarized and lightly edited for clarity.
This whole discourse at the moment in the Netherlands, which is mostly from the right parties and the far-right parties, they are very anti-LGBT in itself, right? So they don't want to talk about it, they try to ridicule, say that this is an ideology that they don't support. I would say. And this gets more and more [into a] political debate trying to stop motions or bills, trying to stop anything that is about trans issues, and of course, they first started with the kids having gender-affirming care, trying to [take] that away, but it triples down.
With kids, for many of them, they came out of the COVID [pandemic], like, “Okay, now I can be myself. Let me show the world that I am part of the non-binary, I'm part of the trans community. And then all of a sudden, it's like, the government says no. And that is really difficult. We see it in the suicide rates, we see it in how many people seek mental health. In Amsterdam, there's a real LGBT psychiatric clinic. It's in the city center, and they just opened, and they already have a waiting list now of 2 years. But it's filled with people, and especially youth.
[At schools], it has become more and more in fashion to say, like, these trans people, let's bully them. I think that something which we will see in the future, in the upcoming years, [will me] that you have kids that are booted off school, or don't want to go anymore, and until now, that is something that has not been the case in the Netherlands that much.
I think a lot of people are closing down, or [putting up their] guard. We always had openness, coming together in your house, this kind of thing. [This kind of community is] getting less and less, because there is so much negativity. It's very difficult to clear that air at the moment in an environment that is already highly polluted, right?
The ballroom community, that's where I see this harmony. I see in the ballroom community a lot of trying to reach out for each other, helping each other with sleeping places or whatever. So it's a bit back to, it's now 35 years ago that we had “Paris Is Burning,” a bit back to that period.
Peru
On April 2, Congress approved Law 32331, “Law that Strengthens the Right to Sexual Integrity of Children and Adolescents.” The law was promulgated without presidential veto on May 12, and is commonly referred to as the “Bathroom Law.” It mandates that all public restrooms be used according to biological sex, requires mandatory signage, and obliges staff responsible for security and public attention to receive training and apply enforcement protocols. This measure has raised significant concerns among human rights defenders, who warn that it legitimizes the harassment and surveillance of trans, nonbinary, and some intersex people in public spaces.
Five months later, on September 3, Congressmember Milagros Jáuregui, an evangelical pastor and member of the far-right Renovación Popular party, introduced Bill 12286-2025, “Bill on the Protection of Minors From Interventions That May Irreversibly Alter the Development of Their Personality,” seeking to prohibit gender-affirming medical care and social transition for minors. Renovación Popular is one of the most influential conservative forces in Peru, forming part of the governing coalition and holding the mayorship of Lima, the country’s most populous city. The proposal would ban the prescription of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-affirming surgeries for people under 18, as well as prohibit schools and health institutions from using lived names or modifying school records. It also proposes criminal penalties of no less than five years in prison for those who provide such treatments or promote social transition protocols for minors. The bill has not yet been debated in Congress.
A First Person Perspective
Bruno Montenegro shares a firsthand experience from Peru for Outright's "A Year in Attacks on Trans, Nonbinary, and Intersex People’s Human Rights" report.
Slovakia
In March 2025, the Slovak government proposed a constitutional amendment that explicitly recognizes only two genders. On September 29, the National Council narrowly approved the amendment with support from the government and some opposition members. President Peter Pelligrini signed it into law on October 1.
Article 52a of the amendment states: “The Slovak Republic recognizes only the sex of man and woman.” The amendment also adds new parental consent requirements for sex education, specifying that education on intimate life and sexual behavior may be provided only with the consent of a legal guardian. It also restricts adoption rights, stipulating that only married couples, a married stepparent, or, in exceptional cases, a single person may adopt, effectively excluding same-sex couples from joint adoption. Legal experts and human rights organizations, including the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, have warned that the amendment conflicts with Slovakia’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly regarding the rights to private and family life and the prohibition of discrimination. By constitutionalizing a binary definition of sex and excluding same-sex couples from adoption, the reform makes future legal challenges to discriminatory policies more difficult and limits the ability of courts to interpret rights expansively.
Türkiye
In Türkiye, the discriminatory language in a hostile bill proposed by a far-right party allied with the government in April 2025 appeared to have made its way into a formal government-supported proposal in October. Both drafts rely on vague language that could criminalize trans and queer people and their allies.
On April 17, the far-right HÜDA-PAR party, a partner of the ruling People’s Alliance, introduced Bill No. 2/3061, the “Bill on Amendments to the Turkish Penal Code and Certain Other Laws.” The measure, on the purported basis of “morality,” criminalizes “concealing one’s biological sex” when entering marriage,” potentially criminalizing both trans and intersex people, and mandates prison sentences for those who “encourage or promote behaviors contrary to biological sex,” criminalizing not only same-sex relations but also any public expression that challenges the notion of immutable biological sex. It also amends the Broadcasting Law to prohibit radio, television, and digital media content that “encourages or promotes” sexual relations or behaviors between individuals of the same sex, effectively censoring any positive or even neutral representation of LGBTIQ identities in media, art, and education.
The bill’s justification frames LGBTIQ identities and advocacy as threats to morality, family, and national population policy, claiming that those who “defend, promote, and propagate sexual relations between individuals of the same sex” are engaged in “destructive activities against human nature, offspring, the family, and the social structure.” It denounces what it calls “genderlessness” (cinsiyetsizlik) and “perverted ideologies” that question binary sex, framing them as a threat to “human nature, offspring, the family, and social order.” By equating trans existence and advocacy with moral decay and “degendering movements,” the proposal’s narrative mirrors the global anti-gender discourse that pathologizes trans identities as a form of social corruption and positions the state as the guardian of a fixed, cisheteronormative order.
Beyond criminalizing same-sex relations, the bill extends criminal liability to anyone who publicly affirms or accepts identities and desires that fall outside patriarchal and cisheteronormative norms—including through speech, education, art, or activism. Its broad language on “promotion” and “propaganda” creates a chilling effect on LGBTIQ visibility and could be used to silence human rights organizations, media outlets, and even individuals expressing support for equality. Human rights defenders and LGBTIQ organizations described the bill as a “manifesto of hate,” warning that it would legitimize the persecution of LGBTIQ people, censor the media, and criminalize activism.
In October 2025, a new government draft, known as the “11th Judicial Package,” was leaked to the press, revealing even harsher provisions. The bill effectively criminalizes consensual same-sex conduct and gender nonconformity, potentially impacting not only LGBTIQ people but also their friends and family members, allies, and anyone who believes that children and adults should not be required to behave according to rigid gender norms, through a provision according to which “a person who engages in or publicly encourages, praises, or promotes attitudes and behaviors contrary to the innate biological sex and general morality shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three years.” According to civil society analyses of the leaked text, this provision appears under the proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Turkish Penal Code (titled “Obscene Acts”) and would, for the first time, make it a criminal offense to advocate or publicly express support for gender diversity or same-sex relationships.
The draft raises the minimum age for legal gender reassignment from 18 to 25, requires four separate psychiatric evaluations over a one-year period, and limits eligibility to unmarried applicants. It also mandates that the “necessity” of gender reassignment be proven through a state-approved medical board, reinstating pathologizing and paternalistic barriers that had been challenged for years. It further reintroduces a sterilization requirement—previously annulled by Türkiye’s Constitutional Court in 2017.
One of the most alarming innovations in the draft is the criminalization of gender-affirming health care itself. Under the proposed amendments to Article 93/A of the Penal Code, health professionals who perform medical interventions related to gender reassignment without court authorization would face imprisonment from three to seven years and judicial fines, while trans persons accessing such care independently could be sentenced to one to three years.
These penalties apply not only to surgical interventions but also to non-surgical procedures, such as hormone therapy or other forms of medical support, effectively turning the pursuit of bodily autonomy into a criminal act. The provision would push trans people toward unregulated and unsafe treatments, exacerbating health risks and deepening structural discrimination.
The draft’s justification explicitly casts gender diversity as a threat to the family and to “physically and mentally healthy generations,” framing restrictions as part of a “constitutional duty to protect youth from degendering movements.” The proposal also penalizes same-sex symbolic marriages or engagement ceremonies with prison sentences of up to four years, and establishes new powers for online content removal and censorship of LGBTIQ-related speech. These statements mirror narratives used in neighboring countries to justify bans on gender-affirming care and represent an effort to eliminate trans existence from the legal and medical framework.
While criminalizing gender-affirming care for trans people, the draft also appears to mandate intersex genital mutilation. According to KaosGL, it states: “In cases where it is determined by an official medical board report from a fully equipped training and research hospital designated by the Ministry of Health that a person has developmental disorders in the genital organs due to genetic and/or hormonal diseases, mandatory medical interventions for treatment may be carried out…”
If adopted, the 11th Judicial Package would make Türkiye one of the most restrictive environments in the Council of Europe for trans people, denying adults the right to self-determination over their bodies and embedding medical control and criminalization at the heart of gender recognition. It would also be the only country in the Council of Europe to criminalize same-sex sexual acts, allyship, and textbook feminist beliefs. As of October 2025, the Ministry of Justice had not published the full text of the proposal, and it remained unclear whether it would be formally introduced in Parliament.
A First-Person Perspective
Beha Yildiz shares a first-person perspective from the United Kingdom for Outright's "A Year in Attacks on Trans, Nonbinary, and Intersex People’s Human Rights" report.
United-Kingdom
On April 16, the UK Supreme Court issued its judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, ruling that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer strictly to biological sex. The Court held that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, meaning that trans women—even those with official legal recognition of their gender—are not legally considered “women” under provisions in that law that protect against sex discrimination.
The Court decided that Parliament had intended “woman” and “man” to have their ordinary biological meaning throughout the Act, and that protection for trans people is provided instead under the separate characteristic of “gender reassignment.” The decision explicitly rejected the interpretation adopted by the Scottish Government and supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which had treated trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates as women for all purposes under the Act.
The Supreme Court’s decision-making process has been heavily criticised for its refusal to allow any interventions from trans people while permitting interventions from anti-trans groups that have built their reputation on the claim that trans women are not women, including Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance, and for its decision to ignore what is widely understood to be the mandatory obligation to take human rights law into account in construing legislation. Trans advocacy groups in the UK condemned the decision as a grave setback for equality. The trans-led organization TransActual, a UK-based organization led by and for trans people that campaigns for policy reform, awareness, and equal rights, stated that “trans communities are devastated by today’s ruling,” noting that “the Supreme Court chose not to hear from any trans people, preferring instead to listen to exclusionary groups.” The organization warned that “instead of bringing clarity, the Court has made a ruling which appears to contain a number of contradictions,” adding that “irrespective of the small print, the intent seems clear: to exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society.” OII Europe, the umbrella organization of intersex human rights groups in Europe, further commented on the ruling’s impact on intersex people, whose existence is not acknowledged by the Court:
The ruling is dangerous in that it effectively sets a precedent giving Courts the power to decide who does and doesn’t qualify as a ‘real woman’, based on the bioessentialism and the belief in two binary categories only, which fails to reflect the truth that intersex people exist and that sex – in its chromosomal, hormonal and as well as other primary and secondary sex characteristics – is a spectrum.
The ruling has increased a sense in the UK legal community that its courts are not sympathetic to legal attempts to preserve the rights and dignity of trans people, with likely consequences for intersex people as well. The effects of the decision remain unclear—the Supreme Court said explicitly that it would not reduce the protections given to trans people, although commentators have struggled to reconcile that statement with what the decision does. What can be said with certainty is that it is likely to spark a substantial wave of litigation for a number of years.
A First Person Perspective
Cynthia Fortlage shares a first-person perspective from the United Kingdom for Outright's "A Year in Attacks on Trans, Nonbinary, and Intersex People’s Human Rights" report.
United States
President Donald Trump made attacks on transgender people’s rights a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, framing them as a key battleground in what he called the fight against “left-wing gender insanity.” His official campaign platform pledged to ban gender-affirming care for minors, restrict trans participation in sports and public facilities, and penalize health care providers who offer affirming treatment. At rallies across the country, Trump repeatedly promised to revoke federal protections for transgender students, declaring, “We will get transgender insanity the hell out of our schools,” to energize his base. Trump’s campaign and affiliated political action committees (PACs) spent roughly US$17 million on ads equating gender-affirming care with “child abuse” and “mutilation,” which aired tens of thousands of times in battleground states, often during major sporting events. In total, Republican campaigns invested more than US$200 million in television ads attacking trans people’s rights, systematically portraying trans identities as a threat to children and public safety.
This climate of moral panic created the political conditions for the sweeping federal rollbacks of January 2025. It allowed the Trump administration to translate campaign promises into immediate executive action, signaling from day one that dismantling protections for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people would be a central priority of the new government.
1.1 Federal Developments
In his January 20 inaugural address, President Trump set the tone for a sweeping federal rollback of protections for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. He declared that it would henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that “there are only two genders: male and female,” signaling the end of federal efforts to “socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.” Using coded language to attack other forms of diversity, he pledged to build a “colorblind and merit-based” society. These remarks laid the groundwork for the executive orders he signed later that day and in the days that followed.
That day, President Trump issued Executive Order 14151 on “Ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing,” eliminating all federal diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs, positions, and contracts. Agencies were instructed to terminate DEIA and environmental justice positions, cancel equity action plans, and review hiring, training, and contracting practices to remove any DEIA-related elements.
That same day, he signed Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” requiring all federal agencies to recognize only two immutable sexes—male and female—and to replace the term “gender” with “sex” in all policies and documents. The order directed agencies to remove references to gender identity, halt funding for gender-affirming care, and revise identification documents and personnel records. These measures not only erased recognition of trans and nonbinary identities at the federal level but also placed intersex people in a legal and policy limbo—no longer explicitly acknowledged in federal guidance, and not fitting within the strictly binary definitions imposed by the new order. This exclusion is deepening barriers to health care and increasing stigma and invisibility.
Four days before President Trump’s inauguration, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a groundbreaking report on advancing intersex health, acknowledging intersex people and outlining key steps to improve health equity. One of the first actions of the Trump administration was to remove this report from the government website, halting the first federal effort to address intersex health needs.
Trump Administration Executive Orders That Negatively Impact Trans, Nonbinary, and Intersex People, January-October 2025
Executive Order No. 14151
Executive Order No. 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing
January 20, 2025
Eliminates all federal DEI programs, positions, and contracts—removing institutional mechanisms promoting equality and inclusion.
Executive Order No. 14168
Executive Order No. 14168: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government
January 20, 2025
Requires all agencies to recognize only two sexes, deletes references to gender identity, and halts funding for gender-affirming care.
Executive Order No. 14173
Executive Order No. 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
January 21, 2025
Revokes workplace protections for contractors based on sexual orientation and gender identity; dismantles DEI enforcement mechanisms.
Executive Order No. 14183
Executive Order No. 14183: Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness
January 27, 2025
Reinstates the ban on trans service members and prohibits the use of pronouns inconsistent with “biological sex” in the military.
Executive Order No. 14190
Executive Order No. 14190: Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12 Schooling
January 29, 2025
Bans the teaching of “gender ideology” and penalizes teachers who respect trans students’ names or pronouns without parental consent.
Executive Order No. 14201
Executive Order No. 14201: Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports
February 5, 2025
Bars trans and some intersex women and girls from participating in female sports categories in federally funded schools.
On January 21, Trump signed Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which revoked key workplace protections for federal contractors, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also repealed Executive Order 11246 and stripped the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the authority to promote diversity or require affirmative action. These changes dismantle a core mechanism protecting trans and other marginalized workers, reinstating a narrow “merit-based” framework that disregards systemic inequality.
On January 27, Trump signed Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which reinstated a ban on transgender people serving in the military. This longstanding ban had been lifted in 2016 by the Obama administration, reinstated in 2017 by the first Trump administration, and lifted again by the Biden administration. The order revoked Executive Order 14004 of 2021, which had allowed all qualified Americans to serve regardless of gender identity, and instructed the Department of Defense to update its medical standards to exclude individuals with gender dysphoria from enlistment and retention. Executive Order 14183 directs the Department of Defense to prohibit the use of pronouns that do not correspond to a person’s sex as defined in Executive Order 14168, emphasizing that pronoun use inconsistent with biological sex is incompatible with military standards of “readiness, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” The order also mandates that the Armed Forces enforce sex-segregated facilities for sleeping, bathing, and changing, allowing exceptions only in cases of extraordinary operational necessity.
Two days later, on January 29, Trump signed Executive Order 14190, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” This order prohibited primary and secondary schools, in which kindergarten through 12th grade are taught, from teaching “gender ideology,” and authorized penalties for teachers who respect trans students’ gender identities. The order directed agencies to identify and cut federal funding for curricula, teacher training, or school policies that support students’ gender identity recognition or social transition, including cases where schools respect a student’s chosen name or pronouns without parental consent. EO 14190 further authorized federal coordination with state attorneys general to take action against teachers or school officials who facilitate a student’s social transition, framing such actions as unlawful practice of medicine.
The federal agenda continued into February: on February 5, Trump signed Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” banning transgender women and girls from participating in female sports categories in federally funded schools and universities, and granting enforcement authority to federal agencies and state attorneys general.
Collectively, these measures represent a comprehensive federal effort to erase legal recognition of gender diversity, restrict access to health care and education, and codify a rigid binary definition of sex in U.S. law and policy.
1.2 States and Territories Developments
The leadership assumed by President Trump at the federal level gave new momentum to anti-trans initiatives from governors and legislators in his party across the states and two territories. According to Trans Legislation Tracker, an independent research organization monitoring bills that impact trans and gender-diverse people across the United States, as of September, 999 bills were under consideration across the country in 2025 that would negatively impact trans and gender nonconforming people—a number that is anticipated to grow. Some of the bills also negatively impact intersex people. By mid-September 2025, 122 of those bills had passed, with 119 signed into law and three pending gubernatorial action.
These measures have been introduced or passed in 28 of the country’s 50 states: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Two specific examples, Wyoming and Montana, are illustrative of the scope, content, and impact of the measures being implemented across the country.
Between February and March 2025, Wyoming advanced one of the most aggressive anti-trans legislative agendas in the country, enacting six major measures in just over two weeks. On February 27, Governor Mark Gordon signed SF0077, “Compelled Speech is Not Free Speech,” prohibiting state agencies and political subdivisions from requiring the use of preferred pronouns and creating a civil cause of action for violations. On March 3, two additional measures became law: SF0062, “Sex-Designated Facilities and Public Schools,” which mandates that students in publicly funded schools use restrooms corresponding to their sex at birth and allows parents to sue for noncompliance, and HB0072, the “Protecting Women’s Privacy in Public Spaces Act,” which requires sex-based designation of restrooms, changing areas, and sleeping quarters in all public facilities, and creates a private right of action against institutions that fail to enforce these restrictions. On March 4, Governor Gordon signed HB0147, “Prohibition of Institutional Discrimination,” prohibiting any state or local government entity from running diversity, equity, or inclusion programs and banning mandatory DEI training. Nine days later, on March 13, Wyoming enacted SF0044, “Fairness in Sports – Intercollegiate Athletics,” requiring students at the University of Wyoming and state community colleges to compete in sports according to the sex listed on their birth certificate. Finally, on March 14, HB0032, “What is a Woman Act,” was signed into law, defining sex strictly as male or female at birth for all state laws, rules, and data collection, and affirming that separate accommodations for men and women are not legally unequal.
From late March through mid-May 2025, Montana carried out one of the broadest anti-trans legislative offensives seen this year, pushing through more than ten new laws and one resolution in rapid succession. On March 27, Governor Greg Gianforte signed HB121, “Provide Privacy in Certain Restrooms, Changing Rooms, and Sleeping Quarters,” requiring that multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters in public schools, correctional facilities, and government buildings be designated by sex at birth and used accordingly. On the same day, Gianforte signed HB300, “Generally Revise Laws Related to Discrimination in Education,” which bars trans girls and women from participating in female-designated school athletic programs and protects “sex-based” access to facilities as a matter of anti-discrimination law. On April 21, he signed SB437, “Revise Definition of Sex in Montana Law,” a sweeping law defining “sex,” “male,” and “female” strictly in biological terms and amending dozens of state statutes to remove any recognition of gender identity from Montana’s legal code.
On May 1, Montana adopted HB400, “Free to Speak Act,” prohibiting public schools and state agencies from disciplining students or employees who refuse to use a person’s chosen name or pronouns; HB471, “Revise education laws related to human sexuality and identity instruction,” which requires parental opt-in for any instruction related to gender identity or human sexuality and mandates advance public posting of curricula; and HB638, “Revise human rights laws,” banning state and local government agencies from requiring diversity statements or granting preferential treatment based on them. On the same day, the legislature passed HJ10, “Resolution on Sports Laws,” a resolution urging Congress to adopt the federal Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, explicitly declaring that “biological males” should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports.
On May 13, three more measures were signed: HB682, “Generally Revise Laws Regarding Gender Transition Treatment,” establishing a 25-year statute of limitations for lawsuits related to gender transition care received as a minor and mandating insurance coverage for detransition treatment; HB690, “Generally Revise Laws Related to Child Protection,” amending child abuse and neglect laws to specify that raising a child in alignment with their assigned sex does not constitute abuse solely for that reason; and HB819, “Revise laws relating to flag displays in and on state buildings and grounds,” prohibiting the display of nongovernmental or “politically charged” flags—including Pride flags—on state property. Finally, on May 8, SB218, “Provide for Private Right of Action for Injuries Caused by Certain Medical Interventions to Treat Gender Dysphoria,” created a private cause of action allowing individuals to sue health care providers for injuries allegedly caused by gender-affirming treatments for up to 25 years after reaching adulthood, reinforcing the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
In addition to the states that have enacted or introduced anti-trans measures, two U.S. territories have also taken action. In June 2025, the Guam Education Board unanimously passed a resolution amending the Interscholastic Sports Association constitution to explicitly ban female transgender athletes from participating in girls’ sports. The resolution followed guidance from Guam Attorney General Doug Moylan, who warned that noncompliance could jeopardize approximately US$170 million in federal funding for the territory’s Department of Education.
On July 20, Puerto Rico Governor Jenniffer González Colón signed Act 63-2025, “Law for the Protection of the Health and Well-Being of Minors in Puerto Rico,” the most far-reaching gender-affirming care ban in any U.S. jurisdiction. Puerto Rico now criminalizes gender-affirming care for anyone under 21 and imposes penalties for providers of up to 15 years in prison, US$50,000 in fines, and revocation of their licenses. It also mandates detransition for young adults already in treatment.
Taken all together, these state-level actions illustrate a rapidly expanding effort to dismantle protections, restrict health care, and formalize discrimination against trans and intersex people, complementing and reinforcing the federal agenda.
A First Person Perspective
Quinton Reynolds shares a perspective from the United States for Outright's "A Year in Attacks on Trans, Nonbinary, and Intersex People’s Human Rights" report.
Vanatu
In May 2025, Vanuatu’s parliament passed the Constitution (Ninth) (Amendment) Act No. 7 of 2025, a package of eight constitutional amendments. Among other changes, the reform introduced a new clause stating that the Republic “only recognizes the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals who are male and female at birth.” In the explanatory note of the bill, this amendment was justified by asserting that “as a sovereign nation, Vanuatu is founded on traditional Melanesian values and Christian principles,” and therefore “only recognizes the fundamental rights and freedoms of an individual who is a male or female at birth.”
The strangely worded amendment appears to deny all rights to intersex people, and also seems designed to exclude trans and gender-diverse people as rights holders. The Pacific Sexual and Gender Diversity Network warned that it would entrench discrimination and undermine freedom of expression.
After Parliament’s approval by the required two-thirds majority, the constitutional amendments were sent to the President for his assent. Before signing the bill into law, the President referred the entire package to the Supreme Court in August 2025, invoking his authority under the Constitution to seek an advisory opinion on its constitutionality. The president did not question the article that stated that the Republic recognizes only “individuals who are male or female at birth,” but rather raised concerns about a different provision within the same package. However, under Vanuatu’s constitutional procedure, such a referral automatically suspends the promulgation of the entire set of amendments until the Court delivers its opinion, temporarily delaying all reforms’ entry into force.
On October 16, the Supreme Court declared that the provision challenged by the President was constitutional and authorized him to assent to the entire package of amendments. The Court did not address the clause limiting the recognition of fundamental rights to individuals “male and female at birth,” which therefore remained unaffected and cleared for promulgation along with the rest of the reforms.
With the Supreme Court’s decision, there are no remaining legal obstacles to the promulgation of the constitutional amendments. Once assented to, the new constitutional text will formally limit recognition of fundamental rights and freedoms in Vanuatu to individuals “male and female at birth,” marking one of the most explicit anti-trans and anti-intersex constitutional reforms to date in the Pacific region.
Spain
Spain propelled itself into a leadership position on trans and intersex people’s rights in 2023 when it enacted Law 4/2023, “For the Real and Effective Equality of Trans Persons and for the Guarantee of LGBTI Rights.” The law establishes legal gender recognition based on self-determination for anyone aged 16 and above, without medical or judicial requirements. It also extends anti-discrimination protections, guarantees access to gender-affirming health care, and includes measures promoting equality in education, employment, and public services. The law further prohibits non-consensual medical interventions on intersex minors, marking a significant step toward protecting bodily autonomy and integrity.
On February 22, 2025, the far-right party Vox, which holds about nine percent of seats in Parliament, filed a motion in the Congress of Deputies—Proposition 162/000424— urging the government to repeal the Trans Law. While politically significant, the measure was not a binding legislative initiative and therefore did not amount to a formal attempt to modify or overturn the law. Vox justified the proposal by claiming that the national law “puts at risk spaces of intimacy for women and girls” and facilitates “aggressive processes” for minors, echoing anti-gender narratives used across Europe.
At the same time, Vox launched a coordinated campaign across several regional parliaments to dismantle LGBTIQ and trans protections. Between January and February, the party filed repeal proposals in Madrid, Andalucía, Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, La Rioja, and Murcia, all calling for the annulment of existing LGBTI and trans equality laws. It also supported a motion in Cantabria to exclude trans women from elite female sports. These moves—often framed under narratives about “gender ideology” or the “erasure of women”—illustrate a broader effort to undermine equality frameworks at the regional level and to normalize anti-trans discourse in public debate. Although none of the repeal proposals have advanced beyond the committee stage and national protections under the 2023 Trans Law remain in force, their cumulative effect has been to legitimize exclusionary rhetoric and pressure regional governments to roll back implementation.
