With the issue of transgender access to restrooms of their own choice potentially heading to the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few years, it may be interesting for readers to know that this issue has recently been addressed by the Supreme Court of India. In the 2014 case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court—in a wide-ranging opinion on transgender rights, canvassing a number of legal jurisdictions’ case-law and practices—made reference to toilets in two different places.
The Court’s first toilet-related observation noted that “[h]ijras/transgender persons face huge discrimination in access to public spaces like restaurants, cinemas, shops, malls etc. Further, access to public toilets is also a serious problem they face quite often. Since, there are no separate toilet facilities for Hijras/transgender persons, they have to use male toilets where they are prone to sexual assault and harassment. Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation or gender identity, therefore, impairs equality before law and equal protection of law and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Having identified this constitutional problem, the Court then ultimately ordered (as part of a multi-part order) that “Centre and State Governments should take proper measures to provide medical care to TGs in the hospitals and also provide them separate public toilets and other facilities.”
In response, it appears that the Government of India is actively considering mandating the building of ‘third toilets’ in all hospitals.
Finally, in a cursory search of the (seemingly sparse) literature on this topic, I found the student-authored thesis, “Signs as a Help in Public Spaces: A Comparative Study of Signage Systems for Disadvantaged Groups in East and West” (2010), describing the following development from 2004 in Thailand:
“Comfortingly, in the year of 2004 Chiang Mai Technology School allocated a separated restroom for 15 kathoey students, with a half blue male and half red female symbol on the door.”
Any references to additional case-law and practices from elsewhere outside of the United States is always appreciated!
Comments