Connect with us

Can Proper ID Save The Lives Of Transgender People In Emergencies?

Published

on

Last summer when Bhumika Shrestha travelled to New York City to represent Nepal at the United Nations, she encountered some special questions during her layover in Doha. Shrestha, who is transgender — or, in Nepal, third-gender — presents as an elegant young woman. Her passport and citizenship ID card, however, both list her as a man named Kailash.

In Qatar, airline officials pulled her aside and questioned her about her passport and her appearance but eventually let her go.

The experience was unpleasant for Shrestha but not unsafe. In the worst-case scenario, the documentation discrepancy would have sent her home on the next flight to Kathmandu.

“They asked me questions, and I was scared to fail on my first trip to the U.S.,” she recalls, “but then they believed my story that I was transgender and let me get on the plane.”

Like so many transgender people, Shrestha faces daily administrative struggles. As Paisley Currah, professor of Political Science at City University of New York, explains in a paper titled “Securitizing Gender: Identity, Biometrics, and Transgender Bodies at the Airport,” “When an individual’s cultural legibility is not affirmed by their identity papers, even everyday quotidian transactions become moments of vulnerability.”

However, while common transactions might be difficult, in situations where security is heightened — such as at the airport — discrepancies between gender presentation and documentation can make transgender people the targets of increased scrutiny, neglect, or abuse.

Such vulnerability can be aggravated by emergency conditions. Similar to situations at the airport, during emergencies that require intensified security, people who don’t conform to gendered expectations become anomalies, and anomalies get special — and sometimes unjust — attention. Several countries have seen this happen. International relief agencies admit there is a dearth of attention paid to this issue.

Nepal, with its protected legal status for third-gender citizens, and currently in a disaster preparedness phase awaiting an earthquake, provides a compelling case study for how gender-appropriate ID can protect citizens in emergency situations. The stories from other disasters support government issuance of third-gender ID documents, a move the central government in Nepal has yet to make.

The Importance of Being Eunuch

In the aftermath of the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami — which killed nearly a quarter of a million people in 14 countries — aid and relief organizations in India paid special attention to how their services were administered across genders. Recognizing that women were particularly vulnerable in post-disaster situations, efforts were made to develop gender-sensitive programs.

However, in spite of these special considerations for gender, a class of citizens who do not conform to a binary gender system — male or female — was often excluded from the relief efforts.

The Aravanis of India fall into a third-gender category. The term “Aravani” is used in the state of Tamil Nadu, where the tsunami struck most violently, to refer to a group more widely known as “hijras,” biological males who have feminine gender identity, frequently wear women’s clothing, and perform other feminine gender roles.

When the tsunami hit in late 2004, the resultant disaster aggravated the already deeply entrenched marginalization of third-gender people. In a 2008 report reflecting on the relief efforts, “Indian Ocean Tsunami Through the Gender Lens,” Oxfam research suggests that third-gender “vulnerabilities worsened in the aftermath of the Tsunami.”

The report explains that the “systemic exclusion faced by the Aravanis before the Tsunami was reinforced in post-disaster management practices” and cites homelessness, career-ending injuries (many Aravanis are dancers), and the lack of ration cards (denied because of their gender identity) as impediments to their ability to access basic services and live with dignity.

“Social hierarchies reproduce themselves in contexts of disaster,” explains Arvind Narrain, a leading human rights lawyer in India. “Those who are the margins of society find themselves ostracized and discriminated against when it comes to receiving aid.” Transgenders fall within this category.

“The exclusion of Aravanis in government policy and gender discourse has largely rendered them invisible,” confirms the Oxfam report. “This invisibility was compounded in the aftermath of the Tsunami.”

Just months after the tsunami, India’s third-gender citizens could start registering for passports as a third gender, eunuch, denoted by an “E.” In 2009, further progress was made, adding an “E” to voter registration documents. And in 2011, the Indian government’s heralded citizen ID number system allows “transgender” as a gender option.

But, explains Narrain, ID is not enough. “What one is combating is social prejudice,” he says. “In the immediate crisis situation, what one needs is sensitivity of the relief workers.” However in moving toward the stage of rehabilitation, Narrain believes “documents become key as one cannot avail of aid schemes without it.”

Denied Entry, Fitting the Program

In the ongoing 2011 flood relief efforts in Pakistan, reports have emerged that transgenders are getting left out of the aid efforts and denied from IDP camps because of general prejudice, their non-conforming appearance, and their lack of proper identification documents.

Bindiya Rana, of Gender Interactive Alliance, an NGO working with transgenders in Pakistan, explains that while the Pakistani supreme court directed the government to issue third-gender ID cards in 2009, none have been given out yet. As a result, many transgender citizens lack any identification documents at all. According to Rana, this occurs because “a lot of transgenders get separated from their parents from a very young age and are unable to get their parents’ ID cards and other supporting documents which are required to get an ID.”

Similar instances of aid denial occurred in post-earthquake Haiti.

While same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults has been legal in Haiti since 1986, the LGBT community has been marginalized by years of oppression from government, religious, and community leaders. Daily movement can be dangerous, especially for those who present in a way that is perceived to be gay or transgender.

To cope with harassment and discrimination, LGBT people, writes IGLHRC (the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission) in a 2011 report, “rely on the vigilance of family, friends, and sympathetic neighbors [and] … derive a sense of security from the ability to close a window or lock a door as both physical and a psychological barriers against intrusion and violence.”

But the earthquake destroyed the infrastructure — from walls that kept lives private to alleyways that made travel to clinics and gathering spaces safe — that made security for the lives of LGBT people possible. In the wake of the damage, people who had relied on specialized and often secret services, such as HIV/AIDS medical clinics, were forced to turn to the common consumption of relief aid.

In light of the vulnerability of women in many emergency situations, relief distribution programs often operate by focusing on getting supplies into the hands of women. Studies have demonstrated that women are more likely to distribute relief materials to vulnerable people within families, such as children and the elderly, than are men.

In Haiti IGLHRC research found this problematic for transgender people and people who do not live in a home with a female who qualifies as head of household. Writes IGLHRC: “[T]his policy has had the unintended side-effect of excluding many gay men and transgender people in need.” Their research profiled a gay man who was so desperate to receive food rations that he attempted to stand in a women-only line at an IDP camp dressed as a woman. He was discovered by others in the line and beaten until he ran away.

The More You Know

As Nepal braces for an earthquake, the tension is palpable. Embassies, the government, and INGOs are offering preparedness seminars and consultations. Fliers advertising ready-made safety kits and “go-bags” appear across Kathmandu. A quake hit eastern Nepal in late September and caused some damage and a few deaths, even some in the capital. “Kathmandu is the next Port-au-Prince, but worse,” goes a common refrain in preparedness seminar conversations.

Since 2007, the government of Nepal has been legally mandated by the supreme court to issue third-gender citizenship ID cards; however, only three citizens have successfully registered, despite hundreds attempting. In a gesture of progress, the 2011 national census — despite faulty methodology and accusations of fraud — allowed people to register as third-gender. Similarly, ongoing voter registration in the country has been third-gender-inclusive.

Sunil Babu Pant, MP, director of Blue Diamond Society, Nepal’s LGBTI rights organization, understands the gravity of the situation for third-genders as the country prepares for an earthquake. “All of the small ways in which they face discrimination now will intensify after a disaster when people are desperate for help,” explains Pant, who sits on a parliamentary committee charged with implementing disaster preparedness projects.

Pitamber Aryal, Director of the Disaster Management Department at Red Cross Nepal, which includes disaster response, preparedness and risk reduction, and recovery, frames the problem as one of information: “In crisis response, our default unit is the household, the family,” he explains. “During an emergency, we can’t go check in each household to make sure the aid is being distributed fairly and the family members treated equally.”

In Nepal and other countries where people often live with their families into adulthood, transgender people of all ages may experience stigma and discrimination within the household, and that could manifest itself harshly in resource distribution. In such situations, transgender identification documents might not be immediately helpful. However having government documentation of this class of citizens would encourage relief efforts to be more sensitive to their needs.

“Proper ID cards would give a clear mandate to relief services,” explains Aryal, “to pay attention to transgender people as a vulnerable class of people, and thus make the programs appropriate for their needs.”

Pant agrees: “Citizenship ID cards allow Nepali citizens access to the most basic services. After an earthquake, those basic services will be food, water, and shelter — the things that will make the difference between life and death.”

But ID doesn’t complete the work.

“We need to have gender sensitization activities targeting to different levels … so that people don’t experience stigma, whether it is from the decision maker, service provider, or community,” suggests Aryal. The task, he believes, is to address not only discrimination but stigma. “Unless and until we address stigma, we won’t have sustainable change.”

Pant supports the documentation of gender identity as a move in this direction. In his view, appropriate documents start to put third-gender people on a level plane with the rest of the society. “That’s a step toward eroding stigma,” he says, “then we can have conversations armed with those documents that communicate clearly what our government believes — third-genders are equal.”

The Basic Truth

Earlier this year, the UN acknowledged the importance of proper identification documents for transgender people. Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, explained, “Without official recognition of their preferred gender, transgender and intersex individuals face a wide range of practical, everyday challenges — for example, when applying for a job, opening a bank account or travelling.”

In emergency situations, the administrative hassles that can prevent adequate and appropriate care can be harsh. However, properly gendered documentation can make accessing aid a reality for more people.

“Governments have an obligation to ensure their citizens the maximum protections in emergency situations,” says Dr. Anna Neistat, associate director of the emergencies program at Human Rights Watch. Neistat, who has researched emergencies in more than a dozen countries — including Nepal, Haiti, and Pakistan — puts the simplicity of gender-appropriate identification documents in context: “In conflict and disaster situations, access to humanitarian aid is a human right for all people regardless of identity or presentation, and governments must ensure that aid is accessible.”

Ensuring the safety of transgender people is not as simple as allowing them to document their identity. And carrying around documents that mark people as such — or even counting LGBT people — can bring up myriad safety concerns. What is more, the definitions of gender can differ from document to document, and region to region. Currah reminds us that “for transgender people, the immense number of state actors defining sex [and gender] ensnares them in a Kafkaesque web of official identity contradiction and chaos.”

However, the potential for effective exclusion of transgender people from basic relief in emergency situations sheds light on the urgency with which identity documentation must be carefully considered for all people, and in all programs.

 

Kyle Knight is a Fulbright Scholar in Nepal where his research focuses on the LGBTI rights movement. He previously worked at Human Rights Watch, where he focused on children’s rights issue. For three years, he worked as a suicide prevention counselor for LGBTQ youth at the Trevor Project in New York City. He currently sits on the Trevor Project’s Advocacy and Public Policy Committee, is the president of the Duke University LGBT Network, and a is lecturer in Gender Studies at Tribhuvan University, Nepal’s state-run university in Kathmandu. You can follow him on Twitter @knightktm.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

Published

on

President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person  interview.

“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”

“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”

But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”

Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.

Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”

Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.

Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.

Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.

Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critic who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.

The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.

Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

 

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

on

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

on

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.