transgender rights

Brazil’s Supreme Court decided by a majority that transgender individuals could change their legal name and gender originally included in their civil registry, without the presentation of psychological or medical evaluation, hormonal treatment, transition surgery, or any other medical procedure. The majority understood that no judicial authorization is necessary for the amendment, stating only a self-written report of the trans person is sufficient to change his/her legal name.

Article 40 of the Turkish Civil Code, at the time of this application, required the courts to grant authorization to persons wishing to change their gender assignments and have gender reassignment surgery that (i) persons requesting such change be over the age of 18 and unmarried and (ii) there be an official health council report from an education and research hospital certifying that (a) they are transgender, (b) gender reassignment is necessary fo

The application was made by the First Instance Court handling a case where a transgender man requested to change his gender assignment in the civil registry from “female” to “male.” The First Instance Court applied to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Turkish Civil Code stipulating that amendments to be made in the civil registry to reflect the gender identity of the person whose gender assignment

Under the Civil Code, same-sex marriages are prohibited. In case of a divorce by mutual consent, the marriage can be dissolved if over a year has elapsed, the spouses have made a contract regarding divorce consequences, and they have full active legal capacity. If a couple has children, they have equal rights and duties as parents, regardless of whether they were married, divorced, or separated. A parent cannot surrender their rights or responsibilities over underage children.

Article 240 criminalizes discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among others. The sentence is imprisonment for one to eight years.

O artigo 240 criminaliza a discriminação e incitamento ao ódio e à violência baseado em raça, gênero, orientação sexual e identidade de gênero, entre outros. A pena é de prisão de um a oito anos.

Officials of the Odessa City Council sued the head of the organizing committee of "Odessa Pride-2015" (a multi-day queer festival and peaceful meeting in support of human rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity scheduled for August 2015), in order to limit the right of this organization to peaceful assembly by banning their mass public events, namely gatherings, rallies, pickets, demonstrations meetings, etc., in the center of Odessa.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against applicants, as well as current and former employees, based on race, gender, color, religion, or national origin. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the court interpreted Title VII’s prohibition on gender discrimination in the workplace as including a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This report by the Eurasian Coalition on Male Health (ECOM.ngo) discusses the status and treatment of LGBTQ people in Georgia, specifically gay men, other men who have sex with men (MSM), and trans people. It explains existing legal protections for LGBTQ people, societal attitudes, human rights violations, and recommendations for future progress. (PDF is in English. The External Link offers Russian, English, and Estonian.)

People treated less favorably by their labor union, employment agency, or employer with at least 15 employees because of their race, color, religion, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions, gender identity, and sexual orientation), nati

In 2007, the High Court held that the failure to allow the applicant, a transgender woman who had undergone gender-affirming surgery, to obtain a new birth certificate recording her gender as female violated her rights under Article 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had been made part of Irish law, despite having found in previous proceedings involving the same applicant that her constitutional right to privacy was not disproportionately or excessively infringed.  The Court agreed with the applicant that existing Irish law barred the effective recognition