New Delhi: All his life, Aryan (name changed), 27, has suffered from gender dysphoria – anxiety caused by mismatch between assigned sex and gender identity. As a trans man, he had to run pillar to post to be able to land a suitable corporate job. “When I went for job interviews, I was often told to dress like ‘a woman’ or wear makeup. This would often worsen my dysphoria. It was only recently that I found a job where I could join as a trans man. Things were going well so far, at least I had the space to fight against discrimination, if need be. But now, things seem uncertain again,” he says.Aryan is among thousands of transgender individuals in India who are distressed, not knowing what future holds for them now, with the contentious Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13 by Union minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar.Twelve years ago, in a landmark judgement in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had recognised the transgender identity for the first time and laid down that “self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression”. This set the precedent for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.On October 17, last year, the top court reiterated this in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, awarding compensation to a transgender woman, while flagging the failure of the Union and state governments to implement existing legal protections for transgender persons.Last week’s Bill, however, departs from this. It redefines what it means to be a “transgender person,” once again stripping them of the right to self-determination of their gender identity. The move has drawn protests, both online and offline, and has been heavily criticised by transgender and queer individuals, some of whom, speaking to The Wire, called it “derogatory” and “unconstitutional”. Members of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP) have also alleged that they were neither consulted nor informed about the Bill before it was introduced in parliament. “We didn’t know about it at all. The NCTP is supposed to advise the government on transgender matters, and we weren’t told formally or informally. It’s shocking,” says Rituparna Neog, a council member representing the northeastern region.The Bill is scheduled to be taken up in Lok Sabha on Monday (March 23).What it proposesAccording to the Bill, the new definition for a transgender individual would be “a person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta, or eunuch,” or a person with specific “intersex variations,” or “a person who, at birth, has a congenital variation” in sex characteristics as compared to male or female development in their “primary sexual characteristics, external genitalia, chromosomal patterns, gondal development, endogenous hormone production or response or such other medical conditions”.It adds that any person or child “who has been, by force, allurement, inducement, deceit or undue influence, either with or without consent, compelled to assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity, by mutilation, emasculation, castration, amputation, or any surgical, chemical, or hormonal procedure or otherwise” would also be included in the definition, but barring “persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.”The rationale used by the government for exclusion is either biological or cultural, thus replacing any scope for choice or self-determination, for trans men, trans women, gender-queer and gender non-binary persons.According to them, the amendment is for the benefit of “genuine oppressed persons” and “those who are in actual need of such protection”.An erasure of identityThe 2019 Act was built on the principles of the NALSA judgment, affirming the right to self-identification for transgender persons. It prohibited discrimination and created a statutory framework safeguarding their rights to residence, education, employment, and healthcare. The law also established a ten-member NCTP to oversee and evaluate its implementation.Alongside, the government introduced welfare measures like SMILE scheme, for rehabilitation, healthcare, counselling, education, skill development and economic linkages; annual health insurance coverage of Rs 5 lakh under Ayushman Bharat, recognition of transgender children as Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs) under the National Education Policy; and the inclusion of transgender persons in Skill India Mission.Activists say that many of the benefits and protections promised in the Act are yet to be realised on the ground. However, the new Bill takes away any little success the Act had achieved.Speaking to The Wire, Grace Banu, a Tamil Nadu-based Dalit and transgender rights activist, expresses sadness in the way the Bill “erases our identity, our history, our rights”.“The 2019 Bill also had issues, which we fought, and finally they came up with the NALSA definition in the Act. This Bill again changes that. At a broader level, it proposes terms associated with Hindutva ideology. Our identity is our right, they don’t get to define it.”“They are not talking about our education rights, employment rights or reservation rights, or how to protect trans kids from their families. They are not focusing on any of that,” she says.According to Kaunish Dey Sarkar, a trans man and activist based in Kolkata, the issue of identity becomes two-fold when it comes to those transgender people who “don’t look so”.“The mental construct around this Bill is that only those who can be identified by their so-called ‘different’ appearance can be assigned the transgender identity. For someone like me, a trans man, our visibility is already little in society. Do I have to look a certain way to be accepted by law?” he asks, expressing shock.“The 2019 Act had its problems. But at least it helped us spread awareness about our rights. It helped us feel included in society, in jobs, schools etc. Now all of that will go,” he says, adding, “Now, my identity is in the hands of the government, and along with it the process of identification.”In a statement demanding for the rollback of the Bill, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) said that the amendment, instead of expanding the rights of the transgender community, dilutes it significantly. “All the rights which transmen enjoyed will be taken away as transmen are no more considered transgender as far as the law is concerned. Moreover under the amendment, no person can exercise their right to identify as a transwoman either. The only option for a transgender person under the law is a traditional identity,” it states.Aparna Banerjee, a transgender rights activist based in Kolkata, calls the Bill an attempt at “saffronising” the law. “It’s an unconstitutional, political move.” says Banerjee, who identifies as hijra. “Tomorrow, they will remove even identities like ‘hijra’, since that is a Muslim word, and simply call us ‘demigods’ or stick to the derogatory ‘eunuch’. We’re not human beings anymore.”Banu, who played a central role in the enactment of the 2019 Act, adds to this, “Even in Tamil Nadu, the respectable terms are ‘thirunagai’ and ‘thirunambi’. These are on government records too. Why did they not use that?”“It’s upsetting and we fear the Brahminical, patriarchal people in power,” she notes.Medical scrutinyAs per the 2019 Act, medical examination is not required for a transgender person to obtain a Certificate of Identity. However, the government now proposes stricter verification with mandatory certification from a medical board, the details of which shall be furnished before the district magistrate along with an application. It states that the district magistrate “on being satisfied with the correctness of such certificate” can issue a certificate indicating change in gender.This is in violation of the 2014 judgement which identified “transgender” as an umbrella term for recognition and protection of persons with a gender identity different from the sex assigned at birth, and deemed the insistence on medical interventions “immoral and illegal.”Dr. Aqsa Shaikh, a transwoman, activist, and community medicine professor in Delhi, tells The Wire, “The Bill is an attempt to kind of remedicalise the aspects of gender identity and transness, which the NALSA judgement had rightly demedicalised.”Notably, a group of health and mental health professionals, of which Dr. Shaikh is a part too, have condemned the proposed amendment, calling it “scientifically inaccurate, medically unsound, and incompatible with contemporary standards of transgender healthcare”. They’ve also said its provisions undermine “foundational ethical principles of health care and threaten the ability of healthcare professionals to provide appropriate health care for transgender clients.”Possibility of misuseAmong the most concerning issues in the proposed amendment are the criminal clauses the Bill introduces, activists say.The Bill, in vague language, penalises acts involving “coercion, deception or inducement” in relation to gender-affirming procedures. Dr. Shaikh argues that this could, in practice, enable further criminalisation of consensual medical care. “It’s a disaster, a catastrophe,” she says.Further, it criminalises abduction of adults and children and the infliction of reversible or irreversible bodily harm “through mutilation, emasculation, castration, hormone therapies” and “forced assumption of a transgender identity” with a minimum imprisonment of ten years up to life sentence. While it appears to be intended to prevent abuse, the transgender community has argued that it re-introduces certain negative tropes about transgender people. “This sets a dangerous precedent. If tomorrow, a transgender person comes to me and I give them guidance for surgery, I could be jailed. The government could say I am forcing them. The doctors who give gender-identity certificates will also think twice before giving anyone the certificate,” says Banerjee.On the other hand, she adds, “procedures will continue in black, raising the costs.”Anxiety among communityKaunish says that the Bill not only raises the chances of harassment of transgender people, but it also increases the agony of the community as the government is “stealing from them what was their right”.Aryan says that he spent the last few days worrying about this, but was unable to open up to people around him. “I am worried if even my job will remain now that I am out of this definition of transgender itself,” he said.The 2019 Act brought several recognitions for the transgender community which did not exist until then. This was the first time the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) started recognising transgender certificates and issuing ID cards. The UIDAI also did the same for Aadhaar cards. Meanwhile, activists worked with local organisations to get school boards to include the understanding of gender identity in school curriculum, while the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) added it in teacher training handbooks.It made it possible for thousands of transgender persons to get admission in schools and colleges, and get dignified jobs. With their identity in question now, many are left clueless about what it could mean for their livelihood.“Once the Act changes, society will stop accepting us. School dropouts will increase among transgender people, and so will cases of suicides, rape and abuse. No one will save us now,” Kaunish says.Outrage over the BillAcross India, protests, press conferences and community gatherings are being held to spread awareness about the contentious Bill, while several groups of activists, scholars, lawyers and students have been meeting members of parliament to discuss its impact.On social media, many activists and people from transgender and queer communities have appealed to the public to “#RejectTransBill2026”.At an Indian Women’s Press Corps press conference in Delhi, transgender people drew attention to the language of the Bill, saying it criminalises not only transgender individuals but also their kins and allies. It lays down “an existential threat” to the “hard-won dignity” and turns the state against the people it was pledged to protect.In a statement, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) said, “This retrograde amendment systematically dismantles the limited protections enshrined in the 2019 Act and replaces them with a regime of state surveillance, medical gatekeeping, and bureaucratic control. This Bill is an assault on the constitutional rights of transgender persons and must be withdrawn forthwith.”On Saturday, over 100 members of feminist and lawyer groups under the banner of All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR) have also written an open letter to MPs, appealing to them to reject the Bill.Meanwhile, representatives of the NCTP who were to meet minister Virendra Kumar on Saturday about the Bill he tabled were unable to meet him. Kumar allegedly cited a “family emergency”. Other bureaucrats who met this council resisted the demands raised, allegedly saying “we know what needs to be done with the Bill, so there was no need to consult you”.“Our representatives went there on his (minister’s) urgent invitation. And then he decided to not arrive. It was humiliating. It clearly states their intention with the Bill,” says Neog.The community has resolved to fight against the Bill if implemented and take it to court if needed.“It’s been a long journey. Of course some baby steps were taken over the years, but we haven’t even come close to realising the true welfare and empowerment of the transgender community,” says Dr. Shaikh.While Banu mentions that a “grave human rights violation” is going to happen “before our eyes”. “People are always silent in showing their solidarity to us. Still we continue to fight because we strongly believe in the constitution.”“Our fight won’t end here,” she adds.