I was going to write this article as soon as I learned that the government of India is considering changing its rules about gender identity.
This was the most recent step in a long series of moves that are designed to change Indian culture from being a homogeneous and monolithic culture to one that is more pluralistic and diverse.
The government of New Delhi, which is known for its liberal approach to religious identity, has been working for years to change this.
As the Associated Press reported, in 2014, the government announced a ban on “conversion therapy” — the practice of using religion as a reason to change gender.
While the idea of conversion therapy is not new, the announcement of a ban was a significant one.
Conversion therapy involves the practice, in which a person is forced to change their gender by being subjected to “spiritual healing” — meaning the person is told they have a choice.
But conversion therapy has been banned by India’s parliament for the past decade, largely due to fears that it can result in a patient’s suicide.
Since the ban on conversion therapy, a number of other laws have been introduced in the country that make it more difficult for the religious minority to change genders, including: banning “gender reassignment surgery” — a procedure that involves the body altering its appearance or gender to conform to someone else’s identity; allowing transgender people to legally change their sex from male to female; and banning conversion therapy altogether.
And these are just the laws that have been proposed by the Indian government.
What makes this all the more troubling is that the Indian courts have been taking this a step further, in part, because of the perceived danger of conversion therapies, which the Supreme Court has ruled should be banned.
As I’ve written before, if conversion therapy isn’t banned, the courts could potentially be able to set a precedent that would allow conversion therapy to continue in India.
If this were to happen, I’d be concerned.
But instead, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that conversion therapy was protected under the Indian Constitution, and that it was the Indian people’s right to decide for themselves if they want to accept or reject this practice.
This ruling means that even though conversion therapy may not be legal in India, its continued existence would still be allowed in India if it’s done in consultation with a doctor or therapist.
But that doctor or therapy is unlikely to be a doctor.
In fact, as my colleague and friend, Samara Rajab, pointed out to me, the only doctors who practice conversion therapy in India are those who are not licensed as gender-reassignment specialists.
They are the ones who are often in the same doctor-patient relationships that have led to so many needless tragedies, including the deaths of transgender people and suicide attempts.
These doctors often do not even have the medical training to perform the surgeries themselves, and they are often paid by the government to do it.
The Indian government has argued that it’s the right of the doctor-patients to decide whether or not to accept a gender-change procedure.
But the Indian doctors, who have a very low rate of being certified as gender specialists, don’t seem to understand the implications of this.
They do not believe that the doctor should decide whether a person can be born a boy or a girl.
They also don’t believe that they have the authority to tell a person whether they want a gender reassignment operation or not.
And they don’t understand why they should be allowed to decide who they are and what they can do.
In a recent opinion, a group of Indian judges wrote that the doctors should be prevented from prescribing “medical treatments that are incompatible with their professional integrity.”
They said this would be contrary to the Indian constitution, which states that doctors should not prescribe “any medical treatment contrary to their professional moral or religious convictions.”
As a result, the judges wrote, the doctors were “subjecting themselves to unnecessary legal and ethical difficulties that would be difficult to navigate for any doctor in any country.”
It is not clear whether the Indian judges who wrote this opinion had any actual medical training or expertise.
But they were clearly trying to put pressure on the government, which had not yet approved a medical license for the conversion therapists they were writing about.
It is a troubling precedent.
I don’t know how many people in India who want to be transgender have had to go through this experience.
But it’s not just the doctors.
The vast majority of Indian transgender people have experienced discrimination and violence, and many of them are currently in detention or hiding in fear of violence.
As India’s transgender rights activist, Murali Venkatraman, told me, “If the Indian public were to accept the right to change one’s gender, we should have the same right to have their gender changed, too.”
So what is the government’s solution to this issue?
The government has suggested that India needs to adopt a national standard for gender identity, something the Supreme Council