World
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
JK Rowling mocked Scotland’s new hate crimes law
SCOTLAND
Harry Potter author JK Rowling took the opportunity of Scotland’s new hate speech law coming into force to harass several prominent British transgender people over X, but Scottish police say they’re not planning to charge her over her posts.
Rowling spent the morning of April 1 making a series of posts in mock celebration of the womanhood of well-known trans people, starting with some well-known convicted sex offenders and then listing several notable trans activists. At the end of her series of posts, Rowling gave up the joke.
“🎉🌼🌸April Fools! 🌸🌼🎉Only kidding. Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren’t women at all, but men, every last one of them,” she wrote. “If what I’ve written here qualifies as an offense under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment.”
As is her usual style, Rowling then spent the rest of the day reposting fawning congratulatory posts from other bigots and arguing with people who stood up to her.
Rowling was protesting the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, which came into effect on April 1. The revision to Scottish hate crime law added protections for age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex people, both for aggravated punishment of hate-motivated crimes and for “stirring up hatred” against protected groups.
The law has drawn criticism from free-speech advocates, who say it will having a chilling effect on speech critical of protected communities. But supporters of the law saw that the threshold for prosecution is very high and it’s unlikely to be used for genuine political discourse or advocacy.
So far, that seems to have been borne out — Scottish police have already said that Rowling’s posts do not rise to the level of hate speech and she is not being charged.
In fact, the whole incident has just burnished Rowling’s reputation among anti-trans crusaders.
Not only did British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak commend the decision not to charge Rowling, but his statement to the BBC on the matter seems to back up Rowling’s hateful views.
“Nobody should be criminalized for saying commonsense things about biological sex,” Sunak told the BBC.
Trans issues have become a major issue in the UK over the past several years as a rising tide of self-described “gender-critical” activists — of whom Rowling is the most prominent — have successfully gotten the ear of the governing Conservative Party.
Last year, after the Scottish government passed a controversial law that would allow transpeople to change their legal gender by self-declaration, the British government disallowed the law, saying it would be incompatible with England and Wales’ rules around gender recognition.
Conservatives have also slow-walked their promised bill to ban conversion therapy after years of pressure from gender-criticals who got the government to remove protections for trans youth. A bill in unlikely to pass before elections expected later this year.
Scotland is holding consultations on its own conversion therapy ban bill, but divisions over LGBTQ issues are one of the causes of a rift in the governing Scottish National Party, which is seeing a challenge from the upstart ALBA party, which also wants Scottish independence but has leaned into anti-trans politics.
ENGLAND
An anti-trans activist has announced plans to open a private, members-only lesbian bar that refuses admission to trans women in London later this year, although details on where the bar will be located or when it will open have yet to be revealed.
The bar, to be called L Community, will be a private, members-only bar, which owner Jenny Watson, 32, says will allow her to skirt discrimination laws by restricting membership to cisgender lesbians.
Watson has gain notoriety in England for throwing lesbian focused events that exclude trans women.
Last year, Watson threw a lesbian speed-dating event that gathered controversy for its trans-exclusion policy, but was ultimately allowed to go ahead.
Watson says the backlash to that event has led to her other trans-exclusionary events being refused or cancelled by venues she’s tried to book. Having her own venue will allow her to host her own events.
“No one will take bookings for my events any more,” Watson told the Telegraph. “The trans activists are constantly targeting the events, so venues don’t want anything to do with them.”
“We should have a right to our own space — hence the idea to set up the bar. It will be for biological females only and this is why we’re making it a members-only club so we can legally restrict it to women,” she said.
On the web site for L Community, Watson lists potential events the bar could host, including speed dating, networking events, lesbian movie nights, open mics, trivia nights, book clubs and panel discussions.
Even though the bar has no opening date, L Community is already soliciting free and premium memberships, which its website says will come with priority access to events and L Community’s “social media platform.” Premium members are asked to make a “donation” of £120 (approximately $150.)
Anyone wishing to join must attest to being a biological female and upload government ID to the L Community website as proof.
Trans journalist Shivani Dave criticized the “crap new terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] bar” on their Instagram account and announced a plan to hold a trans-inclusive kiss-in in front of the bar “if it ever opens.”
“YOU THINK I’M JOKING? We are gonna go and make out in front of this TERF bar every single day until it closes. Lol that is if it ever even opens. Bigots be bigoting? Trans+ people are gonna be snogging,” they wrote.
THAILAND
Thailand got one step closer to legalizing same-sex marriage this week as the Senate voted 147-3 to advance the marriage bill through first reading. The bill now heads to a committee which has up to 60 days to study the bill before returning it to the senate for second and third reading.
Advancing LGBTQ rights has become a major issue in the southeast Asian country of 66 million over the last decade. Last year saw the opposition Move Forward Party win a plurality of seats in elections to Parliament’s lower house after it promised to legalize same-sex marriage. But the party was barred from government by a court ruling its leader breached the constitution by proposed changes to the country’s strict laws that forbid criticism of the monarchy.
The governing coalition that was later formed without Move Forward agreed to make marriage equality and LGBTQ rights a part of the coalition agreement anyway, and last month the lower house gave final, overwhelming approval to the same-sex marriage bill.
There had been some worry that the bill would face a rougher ride through the more conservative senate, which is made up of appointees of the Thai military, a holdover from the last junta that ran the country until 2017.
But the overwhelming support for the bill in the senate signals that it will likely pass and be sent to the king for royal assent before the summer, with it coming into effect before the end of the year.
Thailand will likely become the first state in southeast Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Elsewhere in Asia, only Taiwan has legalized same-sex marriage, while the Nepalese Supreme Court has legalized it, although it can be difficult for couples to marry in practice.
Thailand’s push to enhance LGBTQ rights hasn’t stopped at marriage. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin has ordered his Cabinet to draft a bill to allow trans people to change their legal gender, and the government is also considering changes to surrogacy law to allow same-sex couples and foreigners to access services to have children. The government is also directing resources toward ending HIV transmission in the country by making PrEP more widely available.
The government is eager to promote Thailand as an LGBTQ tourist destination, and is bidding to have Bangkok host World Pride 2028.
JAPAN
Five more prefectures and more than 40 municipalities began offering partnership certificates to same-sex couples on April 1, providing a limited measure of security for Japan’s LGBTQ couples as marriage remains out of reach.
While courts and the national government continue to fail to recognize same-sex marriage, local governments across the country are stepping up to fill the void with “partnership certificates” for same-sex couples. The certificates can help couples access local services reserved for couples and hospital visitation, but they are not considered legally binding. Couples do not access inheritance rights and are not treated as legal next of kin.
Beginning April 1, Aichi, Hyōgo, Nara, Ōita, and Tokushima prefectures began offering partnership certificates, bringing the total to 26 out of 47 prefectures recognizing same-sex couples. Additionally, 445 municipalities offer the certificates, according to Marriage for All Japan, a local advocacy group. More than two-thirds of Japanese people live in a jurisdiction that offers same-sex partnerships.
Some prefectures go further, offering “familyship” registries that allow same-sex couples to also register their children.
Same-sex marriage, however, remains out of reach for same-sex couples. National lawmakers have proven too conservative to advance LGBTQ rights.
Last year, a government bill that was meant to ban discrimination was given much fanfare ahead of the G7 conference in Tokyo. Conservative lawmakers pushed back and the bill was watered down to simply promote “understanding” of LGBTQ people, with no actual legal protections offered.
Meanwhile, a multi-year effort to advance same-sex marriage through the courts has delivered several key rulings finding that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, but the courts have thus far failed to offer couples any remedy.
Last month, the first appellate-level court issued a ruling finding the marriage ban unconstitutional, but again did not order the government to allow same-sex marriage. The couples involved in the case have said they will appeal to the Supreme Court. Other marriage cases are still ongoing in other district and appellate courts.
For its part, the Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex couples must be given access to a benefit paid to the survivors of crime victims on an equal basis as married heterosexual couples. Observers are already saying that the ruling will have implications for the full suite of benefits of marriage, including when it comes to taxes, housing, inheritance, pension and insurance.
PHILIPPINES
Filipino legislator Marissa Magsino of the opposition OFW Party has filed a bill in Congress seeking to recognize the property rights of same-sex couples, which would be a landmark of progress in the deeply Catholic Asian country if passed.
The bill was filed March 20 but has not yet been called for a first reading, it is a companion to a similar bill filed in the Senate in November 2022, which has been stuck in committee since.
Both bills would only offer limited property rights to same-sex couples. Couples would be deemed to share ownership and responsibility for any property acquired during the partnership, unless a written agreement is signed saying otherwise. A partnership would only be deemed to exist if partners cohabit for at least one year.
The bill aims to treat partners equitably in the event of a breakup.
While this is a very limited set of rights, the Philippines does not currently offer any recognition of same-sex couples or their property rights.
“Though through the years there has been change in the mindset of people on long-standing stereotypes and generalizations with social perceptions becoming more accommodating of the LGBTQ+ community, there’s still no legislation that guarantees equal rights for everybody regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Magsino said in a statement to the Manila Bulletin on April 2.
“This legislation is a significant step towards achieving greater equality and justice for all Filipino citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is imperative that we ensure equal protection under the law for every individual in our society,” she said.
Proposals to create more expansive civil unions that recognize a broader set of rights similar to marriage for same-sex couples have occasionally been lodged in Congress, but none has ever been brought to a vote.
In 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking a right to same-sex marriage for lack of standing, as the petitioner did not seek to get married himself. The petitioner and his counsel were cited for indirect contempt of court over the matter.
The Philippines Congress has struggled to advance any pro-LGBTQ+ legislation for years. A bill that would add discrimination protections for sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, dubbed the SOGIE Bill, has been introduced multiple times since 2001, and has even passed the House of Representatives multiple times, but has always stalled in the more conservative Senate.
Dozens of provinces and municipalities have passed local non-discrimination ordinances across the country.
India’s Income Tax Department has opposed a same-sex couple’s petition that challenges Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.
The provision exempts gifts between spouses from tax. The couple seeks the same benefit for their relationship.
At the center of the challenge is the explanation to the fifth provision of Section 56(2)(x). According to the petition, the provision excludes same-sex partners from the definition of “spouse.” The petition describes that exclusion as unconstitutional.
The provision defines “relative” to include an individual’s spouse, siblings, the spouse’s siblings, parents’ siblings, and other blood relatives.
Paiyo Ashiho and another petitioner, Vivek Divan, asked the Bombay High Court to recognize same-sex couples presumed to be in a marriage as “spouses” under the fifth provision to Section 56(2)(x).
A similar challenge is pending before the Karnataka High Court.
Bengaluru-based engineers Anurag Kalia and Akhilesh Godi have sought similar relief. Kalia said he wanted to give Godi a gold bracelet worth more than ₹115,500 ($1213.44.). The case remains pending.
The Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government rejected the petition in an affidavit filed last year. It argued the plea was not legally tenable because it challenged no action or order of the Income Tax Department. Calling the petition an “abuse of process of law,” the government said the relief sought fell outside the scope of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The government also argued the petitioners sought the benefits available to a “spouse” without legal recognition of their relationship. According to the affidavit, they had not placed on record any law recognizing their relationship as a marriage. It urged the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
The case returned to the spotlight on July 6, when the Bombay High Court heard the petition.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla adjourned the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he would appear on behalf of Modi’s government.
The petition comes nearly two years after the Indian Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling.
In 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench, in a 3-2 verdict, declined to recognize the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage in India. The country’s top court said MPs must decide whether to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.
During the 2023 marriage equality hearings, lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Supreme Court that marriage is a source of social validation, dignity, self-respect, fulfillment, and security. He argued that it also carries legal and civil benefits, including those related to taxation, inheritance, and adoption. Lawyer Anand Grover, who also appeared for the petitioners, told the court that marriage remains fundamental to the functioning of society and is necessary to access several state benefits, including joint tax benefits and surrogacy rights.
Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, in his minority opinion, said the Income Tax Act provides numerous tax benefits for payments made on behalf of a spouse, including deductions for life and health insurance premiums. He also noted that marriage confers several financial benefits on a spouse, including eligibility for gratuity, funeral expenses, medical benefits, and provident fund claims as the dependent of a deceased spouse.
In the marriage equality ruling, the Supreme Court recognized queer people cannot be discriminated against. The court said denying queer couples the material benefits and services available to heterosexual couples violates their fundamental rights.
While issuing directions to the federal, state, and territory governments; Chandrachud said the government should ensure there was no discrimination in access to goods and services. He also directed governments to sensitize the public about queer rights, establish a hotline for the queer community, create safe houses for queer couples, and ensure intersex children were not forced to undergo medical operations.
The petition is awaiting its next hearing before the Bombay High Court.
India’s tax system relies on both direct and indirect taxes, although its direct tax base remains relatively narrow. Individuals pay income tax at progressive rates of up to 30 percent, while consumers pay taxes on most goods and services through the Goods and Services Tax. The Income Tax Act also provides exemptions, deductions, and other tax benefits for eligible taxpayers, including those linked to family relationships and legal marital status.
India’s LGBTQ community is estimated to comprise between 135 million and 140 million people, or nearly 10 percent of the country’s population. Collectively, it is estimated to have a purchasing power exceeding $168 billion. The World Bank estimated that exclusion based on sexual orientation and gender identity cost India between $1.9 billion and $30.8 billion in lost economic output annually, or up to 1.7 percent of its gross domestic product.
India imposed a separate Gift Tax Act in 1958 to tax certain transfers of property made without consideration. Parliament repealed the law in 1998 to simplify the tax system and encourage genuine gifting. However, concerns over tax avoidance later prompted the government to bring gifts back within the Income Tax Act. Today, specified gifts exceeding prescribed limits may be taxed under Section 56(2)(x), subject to exemptions that include gifts received from relatives.
Under the Income Tax Act, gifts received from non-relatives exceeding ₹50,000 ($525.30) in a financial year are generally treated as taxable income, unless they qualify for a statutory exemption. Gifts received from specified relatives, including a spouse, are exempt from tax regardless of their value.
Tarun Khaitan — a research director and professor of public law at the London School of Economics Law School, honorary professorial fellow at Melbourne Law School, and associate fellow of the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights at the University of Oxford — told the Washington Blade the guarantee of equality and non-discrimination under India’s constitution was deliberately framed in broad terms because its framers envisaged that the understanding of those principles would evolve over time. They did not intend to freeze their meaning in 1950, he said. Instead, older and newer statutes alike must be interpreted in light of the constitution’s contemporary understanding.
“Constitutional values must inform the interpretation of all laws in India. It is well established in Indian jurisprudence that if a term can carry two meanings, the court will give it the meaning that complies with constitutional demands,” Khaitan said. “The term ‘spouse’ is not defined in the Income Tax Act, and unlike ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ is not a legal term of art in Indian family law. Its use by the Income Tax Act therefore is apt for judicial interpretation, which must be guided by the constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty.”
Asked how courts should balance respect for legislative choices with their constitutional responsibility to safeguard equality and dignity, Khaitan said he was not convinced that the legislature had made a clear choice in this case. He noted that the Income Tax Act uses the term “spouse” without defining it, adding that no other Indian law, to his knowledge, defines the term either. Its meaning has evolved over time, he said, pointing to the Oxford English Dictionary, which now defines a spouse as “a husband or wife, or a person joined to another in a comparable legally recognized union.”
Khaitan said the decision to restrict the meaning of “spouse” to different-sex married couples appeared to be the government’s interpretation rather than one expressly adopted by MPs. Even so, he said, courts have a duty to safeguard constitutional rights, although those rights are not absolute. The state, he said, must justify any restriction by demonstrating that it serves a sufficiently important public interest and that the limitation is proportionate to that objective.
“The extension of marriage would be a symbolic expression of equal acceptance of same-sex relations by law as well as a the extension of the bundle of material incidents that typically attach to it. Whether or not such extension happens, concerns such as inheritance, hospital visitation rights, decisions regarding end of life care, pensions etc affect the lives of same-sex couples as well as unmarried different-sex couples in a real, material sense,” Khaitan said. “There is no conceptual reason why the expressive salience of ‘marriage’ and the material incidents of a domestic partnership cannot be unbundled.”
Khaitan has had his scholarship cited by the Supreme Court in several constitutional cases, including Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, and Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India, a landmark judgment on indirect discrimination.
Netherlands
Tens of thousands take part in World Pride March
Event capped off two weeks of celebrations in Amsterdam.
AMSTERDAM — Tens of thousands of people on Saturday participated in the World Pride March in Amsterdam.
Outright International Executive Director Maria Sjödin and Paolo Rondelli, who in 2022 became the world’s first openly gay head of state when he became Captain Regent of San Marino, are among those who participated alongside Massachusetts state Rep. Jack Lewis and Olena Shevchenko, chair of Insight, an LGBTQ advocacy group in Ukraine, and others.
Members of D66, the centrist Dutch political party that Prime Minister Rob Jetten heads, also marched.
Jetten in February became the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister. He participated in the opening of the World Pride Human Rights Conference on Aug. 5 and spoke on a panel with Rondelli, former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, and other gay and lesbian current and former heads of government.
(Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)
(Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)
The march took place a week after hundreds of thousands of people lined Amsterdam’s canals for the city’s annual Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade.
A terrorist attack at Berlin’s Christopher Street Day on July 25 left one person dead and more than two dozen others injured.
The incident overshadowed World Pride, which began hours earlier and ended on Saturday.
Dutch authorities increased security measures in the aftermath of the July 25 attack. No incidents were reported during World Pride.
Netherlands
Dutch PM: More needs to be done to defend trans rights
Rob Jetten on Friday was on World Pride Human Rights Conference panel
Editor’s note: International News Editor Michael K. Lavers and Photo Editor Michael Key will be on assignment in Amsterdam until Aug. 10.
AMSTERDAM — Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten on Friday said more needs to be done to defend transgender people and their rights.
“Everywhere in the Western world, it’s definitely the group that’s the most vulnerable in the moment and it’s rather well-picked also by our advisories,” he said during a panel at the World Pride Human Rights Conference in Amsterdam that Ying Xin and Diego García Blum of Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights Policy moderated. “They’ve chosen the smallest group within our broader community (trans people) to attack them, to ensure that we can strip their rights and if they’ve done with that, they’ll go after the next group within our community, so we shouldn’t be naïve about what’s behind it.”
“It’s very well-funded. It’s very well-organized and we have to organize as well to fight back and to win this fight,” added Jetten. “We also need to be more open in conversations that we are having within the community and also dive into it much deeper and maybe even have more difficult and annoying conversations.”
Jetten in February became the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister.
He appeared on the panel alongside former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, who in 2017 became his country’s first openly gay head of government, and former San Marino Captain Regent Paolo Rondelli, who was his country’s ambassador to the U.S. from 2007-2016.
Several other current former heads of government who are gay or lesbian also participated in the panel. They include former Icelandic Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, former Luxembourgish Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, and Andorran Prime Minister Xavier Espot Zamora. California Congressman Mark Takano, who chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and LGBTQ+ Victory Fund CEO Evan Low were among those who attended.
Jetten in his remarks said he was “very surprised” to learn that “not only in the U.S. but also in some European countries that we’ve let them decide what the gay group looked like.” The Dutch prime minister further pointed out that conservatives began “to attack the debate on toilets or starting this debate about trans people in Olympic games.”
“That is, of course, a ridiculous debate to start, but we’ve got distracted because we were so busy having this debate on Olympians, and then we actually forgot the real fight was about access to healthcare, just being yourself, being able to enlist in the army, or being able to be a young trans boy or girl in school,” said Jetten. “We got distracted by some fresh meat that was thrown into the area by some very conservative people.”
“We have to open our eyes and have very in-depth conservations within our community, and come up with a much better strategy to win this fight and to protect all our trans brothers and sisters, dolls, whatever,” he added. “Because if we don’t win this fight for trans people, we’re going to lose the bigger fight for all LGBTQ people in the world.”
Varadkar noted Ireland in 2015 passed a law that allows people to legally change their gender without surgery or other medical interventions.
He conceded there was “a liberal wind blowing across the world at the time, and it was largely uncontested.”
“It would be harder now, quite frankly, to do that legislation,” said Varadkar.
Scottish lawmakers in 2022 passed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which lowered the age for anyone to legally change their gender without medical intervention from 18 to 16. Then-British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government later blocked the measure from taking effect.
The U.K. Supreme Court in 2025 ruled the legal definition of a woman under the country’s Equality Act is limited to “biological women.” Author J.K. Rowling is among those who praised the decision that stemmed from a case that challenged the Scottish government’s decision to include trans women in its definition of women when it sought to increase the number of women on government boards.
The Trump-Vance administration on Jan. 20, 2025, the first day it was in office, issued a sweeping executive order that, among other things, declared the federal government would only recognize two genders: male and female. The White House earlier this year in its counterterrorism strategy said it “will also prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”
“We have to stay united,” said Rondelli. “The strategy was, since the beginning, was a Nazi strategy to create groups, target groups, and to create maximum distractions to avoid discussion about some sort of policies.”
“Trans people are the target at the moment,” he added. “But after them it will probably be some others, so we have to stay united.”
Boris Dittrich, the Dutch Senate’s First Vice President and a member of Jetten’s D66 party who was previously global advocacy director for Human Rights Watch’s LGBTQ Rights Program, at the end of the panel asked about protecting intersex babies from what advocates maintain are unnecessary surgeries.
Flanagan beats Craig in Minn. Senate primary after winning key LGBTQ endorsements
Gay ANC commissioner sues D.C. over police ‘failure’ to pay reward money
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
Jason DePuy on coping with homophobia in ‘Big Brother’ house
