Exploring the Intersection of LGBTQA+ Rights and Culture of Scientific Temperament

Author – PRAGATI DWIVEDI, Student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

I. Abstract:

This research paper aims to explore the intersection of LGBTQA+ rights and culture of scientific temperament. The LGBTQA+ community has been subject to discrimination and violence for centuries, and scientific temperament has been instrumental in bringing about social change and progress. while taking a peek upon evolution of LGBTQA+ rights in India, this paper examines the role of scientific temperament in promoting LGBTQA+ rights and inclusion, and the impact of the LGBTQA+ community on the culture of scientific inquiry. The research draws on literature reviews, case studies, and surveys to examine the relationship between the two concepts.

II. Introduction:

LGBT culture refers to the culture shared by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals. It is also known as queer culture (referring to queer people), whereas gay culture can refer to both “LGBT culture” and homosexual culture. The LGBTQA+ community has been subject to discrimination and violence for centuries, and the struggle for their rights has been a long and arduous journey. The fight for LGBTQA+ rights has been shaped by various social movements, including the feminist and civil rights movements, and has gained momentum in recent years with the legalization of same-sex marriage in many countries. However, there is still a long way to go in terms of achieving full equality and acceptance for the LGBTQA+ community, as they continue to face discrimination in areas such as employment, healthcare, and housing. Scientific temperament, on the other hand, is a cultural value that emphasizes empirical evidence, rationalism, and critical thinking. It has been instrumental in promoting social progress and challenging societal norms. Scientific temperament is crucial in the advancement of knowledge and technology, leading to better healthcare, communication, and environmental sustainability. It also encourages a culture of questioning and skepticism, which helps to prevent the spread of misinformation and pseudoscience. In this paper, we aim to explore the intersection of LGBTQA+ rights and culture of scientific temperament and how they are influencing each other.

III. Indian stance:

On September 6, 2018, a day unlike any other, the LGBT community across the nation erupted in exuberant celebration as they celebrated their win over 200-year-old British legislation that criminalized same-sex relationships. The significance of this entire judgment can be deduced from Justice Indu Malhotra’s statement while reading her 50-page verdict: “History owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redress for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered over the centuries.” The judgement has been hailed as a historic win for the LGBTQ+ community in India, as it decriminalizes same-sex relationships and upholds the constitutional right to equality and non-discrimination. It is a step towards a more inclusive and progressive society. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and the LGBTQ community has a long way to go. The acceptance of LGBTQ individuals is crucial for their mental and emotional well-being, and it also helps to create a safer and more tolerant environment for everyone. Nevertheless, there are still many challenges that the LGBTQ community faces, such as discrimination, violence, and unequal rights.

A. Evolution of LGBT Rights in India:

Despite the fact that homosexuality is no longer a crime, Indian laws continue to be hostile and biased to the LGBT community in a variety of ways. The reason for this is because there is a huge gap in the legislative and judicial development of LGBT laws in India. So, while the Supreme Court of India has laid the groundwork in landmark cases such as National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and Justice K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Puttaswamy), the legislature has failed to keep up with recent developments.

The British colonial government enacted Section 377 of the IPC[1], which criminalized all forms of non-procreative sexual relations prior to independence. The tyrannical rule not only targeted gays, but also all other forms of non-traditional sexual relations, including heterosexual unions. As a result, this regulation was nothing more than a relic of old-fashioned Victorian morality, which had no place in a democratic society like India.

It took more than 70 years and nearly two decades of a protracted legal battle to repeal this antiquated rule, which had been employed as a tool to harass and exploit anyone who didn’t fit into the traditional gender and sexuality binary. Before going any further, it is important to realize that the LGBT+ community in India is not adequately protected by the country’s current laws, even with Section 377 being repealed. While the LGBT rights movement can be said to have started in the early 1990s, all significant advancements that have taken place since then can be analyzed in light of the following major judgements and their effects.

Naz Foundation Govt. v. NCT of Delhi[2]

In July 2001, Lucknow police raided a park and detained a few men on suspicion of being homosexuals. Nine more men associated with “ Bharosa Trust” were arrested and denied bail. The Lawyers Collective, a legal aid organization, came forward and established that the charges pressed against these people were false. Naz Foundation and Lawyers Collective filed a petition before the Delhi High Court in 2001 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner argued that the law violated the fundamental right to life and liberty, right to privacy and dignity, right to health, right to equality and freedom of expression, and undermined public health efforts. In 2009, the High Court of Delhi held that Section 377 of the Indian Constitution imposed an unreasonable restriction over two adults engaging in consensual intercourse in private.

Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation[3]

The Supreme Court of India overturned the judgment of the Delhi High Court and re-criminalized homosexuality on 11th December 2013, ruling that LGBT+ persons constituted a ‘minuscule minority’ and did not deserve constitutional protection. However, the judgement has rekindled a new wave of activism in India, with the Supreme Court’s iconoclastic judgement facing immense criticism for erasing basic human rights of homosexuals. This has led to an upsurge in public discourse about LGBT rights in India.

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India[4]

The 2014 Supreme Court judgement in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India created the ‘third gender’ status for hijras or transgenders, allowing them to proudly identify themselves as transgender. It also laid down the framework to guarantee the transgender community a whole spectrum of basic human rights. The court held that the non-recognition of their identities was in violation of Article 14,15,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and directed the Government of India to treat the members of ‘Third Gender’ as an economically and socially backward class. The court also took cognizance that a conflict between one’s birth gender and identity is not essentially a pathological condition. After this judgement, transgender people now have a constitutional right to identify and register themselves as the third gender, and various state government took small steps to benefit the transgender population by making policies of health and housing.

However, a major blow to this judgement came after the passing of Transgender Persons Bill, 2018. The 2014 Supreme Court judgement in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India created the ‘third gender’ status for hijras or transgenders, allowing them to proudly identify themselves as transgender. It also laid down the framework to guarantee the transgender community a whole spectrum of basic human rights. The court held that the non-recognition of their identities was in violation of Article 14,15,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and directed the Government of India to treat the members of ‘Third Gender’ as an economically and socially backward class. The court also took cognizance that a conflict between one’s birth gender and identity is not essentially a pathological condition.

After this judgement, transgender people now have a constitutional right to identify and register themselves as the third gender, and various state government took small steps to benefit the transgender population by making policies of health and housing. However, a major blow to this judgement came after the passing of Transgender Persons Bill, 2018.

K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017)[5]

The Supreme Court’s ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India (2017) highlighted the importance of the right to privacy in the context of Section 377 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Chandrachud observed that sexual orientation also falls within the wide ambit of the right to privacy, and that the real impact of the law is not only restricted to the prosecution or punishment, but even includes an indirect impact which even involves the creation of a hostile environment for the LGBTQ+ community. This ruling sparked hopes amongst the queer community that the Court would soon strike down Section 377. The Supreme Court’s ruling in K.S.

Puttaswamy V. Union of India (2017) highlighted the importance of the right to privacy in the context of Section 377 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Chandrachud observed that sexual orientation also falls within the wide ambit of the right to privacy, and that the real impact of the law is not only restricted to the prosecution or punishment, but even includes an indirect impact which even involves the creation of a hostile environment for the LGBTQ+ community. This ruling sparked hopes amongst the queer community that the Court would soon strike down Section 377.

Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India[6]

The Supreme court ruled in Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India on 6th September 2018 that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional and infringes on the fundamental rights of intimacy, autonomy and identity. It also decriminalized homosexuality by reading down Section 377 to exclude consensual intercourse between adults of the same sex/gender. The court also heavily criticized the Koushal judgement and called it irrational, arbitrary and manifestly unconstitutional. It also directed the government to create public awareness regarding LGBT rights and to eliminate the stigma surrounding the LGBT people. The judges further elaborated upon the issues surrounding mental health, dignity, privacy, right to self-determination and transgenders.

Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019[7]

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019 was enacted with an objective to protect the rights of the Transgender Community. However, the bill further exposes them to institutional oppression and dehumanizes their body and identity. The bill snatches from an individual the right to determine their sexual orientation, and the change of gender identity in documents can only be done after proof of sex reassignment surgery. It also neglects the viciousness and atrocities that transgenders encounter within their own family, and disentitles them from leaving their families and joining the trans-community. It is high time that the government should acknowledge and frame laws in accordance with the landmark judgement, or else the LGBTQ community will continue to face setbacks in their struggle to have the same rights as those available to heterosexual people.

The future course

After such a comprehensive discussion about the evolution of the LGBT rights movement in India and understanding the significance of various judicial pronouncements, we are now in a position to understand how these judgements will shape the future of the LGBT rights movement in India.

As a result, it is critical to recognize that the relevance of the NALSA and Navtej Singh Johar decisions extends beyond the acceptance of third gender identification and the decriminalization of homosexuality. However, these decisions are also progressive because, in addition to deciding the issue at hand, they laid the groundwork for conferring a slew of other civil rights that were previously unavailable to the LGBT community but are now enjoyed by heterosexual and cisgender people.

These civil rights include the right to marry, the right to adopt, the right to surrogacy, the right against discrimination, the right to be free from sexual assault, and so on.

IV. Literature Review:

Scientific temperament has been a driving force behind the acceptance of the LGBTQA+ community. Researchers have used scientific evidence to challenge myths and stereotypes about the LGBTQA+ community, including the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that LGBTQA+ individuals are more likely to be pedophiles. Studies have shown that there is no evidence to support these claims, and they are based on homophobia and prejudice rather than science. Scientific research has also helped to increase public awareness of the biological, psychological, and social factors that contribute to sexual orientation and gender identity.

In addition, the LGBTQA+ community has made significant contributions to the culture of scientific inquiry. LGBTQA+ individuals have been at the forefront of scientific breakthroughs in many fields, including physics, computer science, and biology. Their unique perspectives and experiences have enriched scientific research and led to new discoveries. However, LGBTQA+ individuals have also faced significant barriers in pursuing scientific careers, including discrimination, harassment, and lack of representation.

V. Methodology:

To examine the intersection of LGBTQA+ rights and culture of scientific temperament, we conducted a literature review, case studies, and surveys. The literature review included peer-reviewed articles, books, and reports on LGBTQA+ rights and scientific temperament. The case studies examined the experiences of LGBTQA+ individuals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The surveys were conducted to gather data on attitudes towards LGBTQA+ individuals in the scientific community.

VI. Results:

Our research found that scientific temperament has played a significant role in promoting LGBTQA+ rights and acceptance. Scientific evidence has helped to challenge myths and stereotypes about the LGBTQA+ community and increase public awareness of their experiences. The LGBTQA+ community has also made significant contributions to the culture of scientific inquiry, enriching research and promoting diversity. However, the LGBTQA+ community still faces significant barriers in pursuing scientific careers, including discrimination, harassment, and lack of representation.

VII. Conclusion:

The intersection of LGBTQA+ rights and culture of scientific temperament is complex and multifaceted. While scientific evidence has been instrumental in promoting LGBTQA+ rights and acceptance, the LGBTQA+ community still faces significant barriers in pursuing scientific careers. More research is needed to understand the relationship between the two concepts and develop strategies to promote diversity and inclusion in the scientific community.

It is said that, while the historic 2018 court ruling and 2014 NALSA judgement were significant steps forward for LGBT+ rights movements in India. However, LGBT individuals in India are not treated equally and do not have the same rights as heterosexual people. Furthermore, they continue to face violence and discrimination in many aspects of life.

It is critical to educate the public about LGBT rights. Human rights are inalienable, indestructible rights that are bestowed onto everyone at birth. It is critical that people recognize that homosexuals are not sick, that they are not aliens, and that their sexual preference is completely natural.

LGBTQ rights need to be recognized as human rights. Non-recognition of same-sex marriages, refusal to allow adoption, guardianship, surrogacy, and IVF, and a lack of access to safe and LGBT+ inclusive schools, colleges, and workplaces are all violations of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 29. Furthermore, discrimination merely on the basis of sexual orientation violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Army, Navy, and Air Force Act.

According to international human rights law, societal norms, customs, culture, or traditions can never be used to prevent another person from expressing his or her fundamental and constitutional rights.

If we start justifying everything on the basis of cultural views, societal values and public policy then there would have been no progressive legislation enacted in our country and we would have never been able to eliminate the social evils of child marriage, Sati, dowry, and infanticide etc.

So, it is essential that the government must wipe away its conservative nature and should take concrete steps to eliminate the stigma, discrimination and abuse surrounding the LGBTQIA+ people. It is high time the government should formulate new laws or amend existing laws on marriage, adoption, guardianship, inheritance educational institutions, employment, healthcare services etc. for education, social security and health of LGBT+ people with special focus to Transgender Persons.

It will lead to greater inclusiveness and will help in bringing the LGBTQIA+ into the mainstream of society and can go a long way in ‘transforming our nation sustainably into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society’

Lastly, I will conclude this article by saying that until and unless the government gives the LGBTQIA+ people in India an equal status, a just and fair struggle for social recognition by LGBT+ will go on.

VIII. References:

[1] Indian Penal Code, §377,No. 45,1860,(India).

[2] Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277.

[3] Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation, Civil Appeal No. 10972 OF 2013.

[4] National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, Writ Petition (civil) No. 604 of 2013.

[5] K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), AIR 2017 SC 4161.

[6] Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321.

[7] The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, No. 40, Acts of Parliament, 2019, (India).