World
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
Marriage equality advances in Liechtenstein, Thailand

UNITED KINGDOM

BY ERIN REED | Following a recent decision in England by the National Health Service to stop prescribing puberty blockers for transgender youth, former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss introduced a bill that would outlaw gender-affirming care for trans youth. The bill would also eliminate any recognition of social transition and would define sex to exclude trans individuals in the Equality Act. Currently, trans youth can still access gender-affirming care through private clinics. However, Truss’ bill ran into trouble on Friday when, instead of being debated, MPs spent hours deliberating over ferrets and pet names, exhausting the available time and preventing the bill from being heard.
As of this week, the National Health Service in England has declared that it will no longer permit trans youth to receive puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. Although the announcement sparked significant public backlash, its practical impact was somewhat mitigated by the extreme waitlist for care, which exceeds five years. Only a hundred trans youth had been prescribed blockers of the thousands waiting for an appointment. Importantly, the decision does not affect care through clinical research trials and does not affect private clinics — a route many parents had already pursued due to the surging wait times at the limited number of NHS clinics providing care.
Truss introduced a bill aimed at curbing that latter route of obtaining care. The proposed legislation would criminalize the prescription of gender-affirming care to trans youth. It seeks to prevent “the recognition of gender inconsistency in children,” which is defined as “referring to a child with language that is inconsistent with their sex” and “treating a child in a manner that is inconsistent with their sex.” However, the bill does not specify how boys and girls should be treated in accordance with the law. Additionally, it proposes amendments to the Equality Act to define sex to exclude trans individuals and end protections in bathrooms and other similar spaces.
See these lines from the bill here:

However, when the time arrived to debate bills, MPs diverted their attention to hours of discussions about ferrets and pet animal names within the context of an animal welfare bill. In one notable interaction, Labour MP Sarah Champion addressed Labour MP Maria Eagle, remarking humorously on the frequent mentions of ferrets:
Champion: “I am very interested in my honorable friend’s, well, key mention of ferrets at every opportunity in this debate. I’d like to put on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar.”
(Laughter)
Eagle: “Well she has that now on the record. I don’t know really what else to say about that except that I’m sure that Oscar brought her brother great joy, and that’s what pets do, and I’m sure there are many other ferret owners who might attest to the same thing.”
You can watch the exchange here:
In another exchange, even some conservatives appeared to be in on it, such as MP Mark Spencer, who spoke at length listing off of many pets that had been named and put on the record.
Spencer: “I am confident that Members of all parties will agree that animals have been of great support to individuals and families, particularly during COVID-19, when my pets were certainly of great support to me. Pets often help to keep people sane when they are under pressure in their everyday pursuits, so it would be remiss of me not to put on the record the names of my three dogs, Tessa, Barney and Maisie, and the name of my cat, Parsnip. There has been a proud tradition this morning of mentioning various pets, including: Harry, George, Henry, Bruce, Snowy, Maisie, Scamp, Becky 1, Becky 2, Tiny, Tilly, Pippin, Kenneth, Roger, Poppy, Juno, Lucky, Lulu, Brooke, Lucy, Marcus and Toby, who are the dogs; and not forgetting Perdita, Nala, Colin, who is sadly no longer with us, Frank, two Smudges, Attlee, Orna, Hetty, Stanley, Mia Cat, Sue, Sulekha, Cassio, Othello, Clapton, Tigger, who is sadly no longer with us, and Pixie, who are the cats.”
The lengthy exchanges on pet names and ferrets ran the time out, and as such, the bill targeting trans people could not be heard. The lengthy discussion, which has since been referred to as a filibuster, echoes filibusters that have occurred in the U.S. to kill similar legislation, including recently in West Virginia on a bill that also would have defined sex in an identical way.
The exchanges provided a ray of hope for trans residents in England, which has been beset by anti-trans politics in recent years. Likewise, it was a sign that the Labour Party, which has previously been seen as “backsliding” on trans rights, has not completely abandoned its transgender constituents. Though the bill is not officially dead, it has been placed at the bottom of the priority list for March 22, meaning it almost certainly will not be debated, with government sources calling the bill “unworkable.”
For those who advocate for trans rights, however, the ferret has become “an overnight symbol of trans resistance” and a sign that anti-trans politics may be reaching their limit even in the U.K.
IRELAND

BY ROB SALERNO | The Irish people delivered a major rebuke to the political establishment by voting overwhelmingly against a pair of constitutional referendums that had been endorsed by all parties which would have amended language in the constitution that says a woman’s place is in the home, and that families are based on marriage.
The government had held the referendum on International Women’s Day, March 8, in a symbolic move, and turnout was measured at 44.4 percent. Results were announced the following day.
Ireland’s gay prime minister, Leo Varadkar, accepted defeat Saturday.
“It was our responsibility to convince the majority of people to vote ‘yes’ and we clearly failed to do so,” Varadkar said.
The first question, which was defeated 67 percent to 33 percent, asked voters to add the words “whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships,” to the constitution’s definition of “family,” in order to be more inclusive of diverse family types.
The second question, which was defeated by a similar margin, as voters to delete a clause that says “the State recognizes that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
Critics say the language promotes sexist gender stereotypes. The revised language would have used gender-neutral language to recognize “the provision of care, by members of a family to one another.”
Advocacy group LGBTQ Ireland had called for people to vote “yes” to both referendums, “so all children and families, including LGBTQ families, are recognized equally in the constitution.”
But a persuasive “no” campaign had arisen that alleged the revision would have struck women’s privileges and rights. Forces aligned against the referendum included some progressive and feminist groups that alleged the proposed language was unclear and lacked consultation.
Irish voters have in recent years approved a number of progressive reforms to their constitution, including streamlining the divorce process in 2019, legalizing abortion and decriminalizing blasphemy in 2018, and legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015.
LIECHTENSTEIN

BY ROB SALERNO | The tiny principality of Liechtenstein got one step closer to full equality for LGBTQ people as its parliament approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage with a 24-1 vote, bringing a years-long process nearly to a close.
Local LGBTQ advocacy group FLAY expressed gratitude to members of Landtag, the Liechtenstein parliament, for advancing the law last week.
“Thank you for 24x ‘yes’ in the Landtag,” the group posted to its Facebook page.
“FLay the association for the queer community in Liechtenstein is very happy that 24 out of 25 deputies in parliament voted in favor on today’s first reading. Keeping in mind the completely blocked situation only 3 years ago, the denial of our government for participating any public discussion, we can be more than proud and happy on our successful steps towards the legitimation of the civil marriage for all,” Stefan Marxer, a FLay board member told the Washington Blade in an email.
The marriage bill is expected to pass second reading before the summer parliamentary break, and come into effect by Jan. 1, 2025, unless a referendum is called on the issue.
The tiny country of about 40,000 people, about the size of D.C., has made major progress on advancing LGBTQ rights in the last decade, though the International Gay and Lesbian Association-Europe ranked the country 38th among 49 European countries in its annual survey of LGBTQ rights on the continent last year.
Liechtenstein has allowed same-sex couples to form registered partnerships with limited rights since 2011. The registered partnership law was subject to a referendum after gay rights opponents collected more than 1,000 signatures demanding it. The law was approved by voters 69 percent to 31 percent.
A same-sex couple had sued the state seeking the right to marriage in 2017, but ultimately lost when the state court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was not unconstitutional. However, the court did find that the law banning same-sex couples from adopting was unconstitutional and ordered the country to amend the law. It eventually did so last year.
Discussion of marriage equality began in earnest in Liechtenstein after neighboring Switzerland passed its same-sex marriage law in its parliament in 2020.
One obstacle was the prince, who wields significant executive authority in Liechtenstein compared to other European monarchies. In 2021, Prince Hans-Adam II said that while he supported same-sex marriage, he would not support adoption rights. That obstacle seemed to disappear when the state court ordered the government to legalize full adoption rights. By 2022, Hans-Adam’s son Alois, who governs as regent, told a magazine that same-sex marriage was “not a problem.”
The Catholic Church had also intervened, with former Archbishop of Liechtenstein Wolfgang Haas leading a campaign against the bill and cancelling a traditional service at the opening of last year’s Parliament in protest. Haas retired last autumn.
Despite broad agreement among legislators, the same-sex marriage law has taken a slow path through Parliament. In November 2022, Parliament voted 23-2 asking the government to bring forward a same-sex marriage bill. The government held a three-month-long public consultation on same-sex marriage last year before putting the bill on the agenda for Parliament’s March 2024 meeting.
Under the marriage bill, the country will stop registering new partnerships, and people in partnerships will have the option of converting them to marriages or keeping them as they are. All other rights will be equalized.
Liechtenstein is the last German-speaking country to legalize same-sex marriage. Around the world, 37 countries have legalized same-sex marriage, including 21 countries in Europe. The most recent country to legalize same-sex marriage is Greece, and Thailand is expected to pass a same-sex marriage law later this year.
JAPAN

BY ROB SALERNO | Two courts ruled this past Thursday that Japan’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, increasing pressure on the government to legalize it.
District courts have been weighing same-sex marriage since several coordinated cases were filed across the country in 2019. Along with Thursday’s ruling from the Tokyo District Court, five district courts have ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, while one court has upheld the ban. A seventh district court case was filed last month.
But on Thursday, the Sapporo High Court delivered the first ruling on same-sex marriage at the appellate level, and same-sex couples won there, too.
So far, all courts have dismissed claims for monetary compensation.
It’s likely that all of the cases will end up at the Supreme Court.
In a statement released after the ruling, the plaintiffs’ lawyers called on the government to act swiftly to protect their rights.
“I would like to reiterate that this shows that there is no time left for legal reform. The government should take seriously this judgment that found this provision to be unconstitutional … and promptly amend the law to allow marriage between same-sex couples,” the statement says.
Under Japan’s legal system, courts rarely invalidate or amend laws that are ruled unconstitutional, leaving that to the legislature.
But Japan’s national government has long been cold to LGBTQ rights. Last year, queer activists had hoped that the government would finally pass a long-demanded anti-discrimination bill, but by the time it was put before the legislature, it had been watered down to a bill that only calls on the government to promote understanding of LGBTQ people.
At the local level, queer activists have seen greater success. Twenty-nine of Japan’s 47 prefectures, as well as hundreds of municipalities, have enacted partnership registries for same-sex couples that at least afford some limited rights.
THAILAND

BY ROB SALERNO | Same-sex marriage could soon be a reality in the Southeast Asian country, as a bill to legalize cleared its first test in the legislature Thursday.
A committee set up by the House of Representatives to examine the bill approved it, setting it up for a final vote in the House on March 27. After that, it will need to be approved by the Senate, which is dominated by appointees of the former military junta that ruled the country until 2017. It is expected that the bill will pass into law by the end of the year.
The proposed bill gives same-sex couples equal rights to married heterosexual couples, including in inheritance, tax rights and adoption.
Same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights generally have become a major political issue in Thailand in recent years, with queer people becoming increasingly visible and demanding greater equality.
Parties promising to legalize same-sex marriage and promote LGBTQ rights were the major victors of last year’s election, although the leading party was controversially disqualified from forming a government due to its support for reforming laws that penalize disparaging the monarchy, which was deemed unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the parties that formed government agreed to pass a same-sex marriage law, and last December, the house voted overwhelmingly to approve in principle a series of draft marriage bills.
The new government has also signaled that it will soon introduce a bill to facilitate legal gender change for trans people, and has begun a campaign to provide free HIV medication as an effort to eliminate HIV transmission by 2030.
Reporting by Erin Reed and Rob Salerno
Spain
Spanish women detail abuses suffered in Franco-era institutions
Barcelona-based photographer Luca Gaetano Pira created ‘Las Descarriadas’ exhibit

A Barcelona-based photographer, audiovisual artist, and activist has created an exhibit that profiles Spanish women who suffered abuse in institutions that Gen. Francisco Franco’s dictatorship established.
Luca Gaetano Pira, who is originally from Italy, spoke with women who the regime, which governed Spain from 1936-1975, sent to Women’s Protection Board institutions.
The regime in 1941 created the board the country’s Justice Ministry oversaw.
Franco named his wife, Carmen Polo, as the board’s honorary president. Then-Prime Minister Felipe González fully dissolved the board in 1985, a decade after Franco’s death.
Gaetano’s exhibit is called “Las Descarriadas” or “The Misguided Women” in English.
“These are women who were detained between 1941 and 1985 for reasons that are unthinkable today: being lesbian, poor, pregnant out of wedlock, rebellious, politically active … or simply considered ‘morally suspect,'” Gaetano noted to the Washington Blade.
Groups affiliated with the Spanish Catholic Church ran these institutions. Gaetano pointed out they were “presented as social assistance centers.”
“In reality, they were spaces of punishment and forced reeducation, where isolation, unpaid work, and psychological violence were the norm,” he said. “Many of the survivors are still alive. Their testimonies are powerful, urgent, and of extraordinary current relevance.”
The regime sent more than 40,000 women to Women’s Protection Board institutions.
“Despite its seemingly benevolent name, it was in fact one of the most powerful instruments of moral and social control over women during and after the dictatorship,” notes the exhibit. “Under the guise of care and re-education, this institution functioned as a repressive apparatus that punished women who deviated from the ideal feminine model imposed by Franco’s regime: submissive, obedient, married, and dedicated to motherhood within the Catholic family structure.”
The Spanish Catholic Church last month issued a public apology, but Gaetano described it as “very soft” and noted “the women did not accept it.” Gaetano also compared the Women’s Protection Board institutions to Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries.
The Associated Press notes tens of thousands of “fallen” women were sent to the laundries that Catholic nuns operated in Ireland from the 18th century until the mid-1990s. Then-Irish Prime Minister Edna Kenny in 2013 issued a formal apology for the abuses that women suffered in the laundries and announced the government would compensate them.
The Spanish government has yet to offer compensation to the women abused in Women’s Protection Board institutions.
“My work focuses on recovering the historical memory of marginalized communities, particularly through the portrayal of survivors of institutional violence and the use of archival materials,” Gaetano told the Blade, noting he has also sought to highlight the repression that LGBTQ people suffered during dictatorships in Portugal and Latin America.
Gaetano’s exhibit can be found here:
Afghanistan
ICC issues arrest warrants for Taliban leaders over persecution of LGBTQ people, women
Groups ‘non-conforming’ with group’s gender policy targeted

The International Criminal Court on Tuesday issued arrest warrants for two top Taliban officials accused of targeting LGBTQ people, women, and others who defy the group’s strict gender norms.
The warrants are for Hibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban’s supreme leader, and Afghanistan Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani.
“Based on evidence presented by the Office (of the Prosecutor), the judges found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed — by ordering, inducing, or soliciting — the crime against humanity of persecution, under article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute, on gender grounds, against girls, women, and other persons non-conforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression; and on political grounds against persons perceived as ‘allies of girls and women,’” reads an ICC press release that announced the warrants.
Karim Khan, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, in January announced a request for warrants against Taliban officials over their treatment of women and other groups since they regained control of Afghanistan in 2021. The request marked the first time the court specifically named LGBTQ people as victims in a gender persecution case before it.
“The issuance of the first arrest warrants in the situation in Afghanistan is an important vindication and acknowledgement of the rights of Afghan women and girls,” reads the press release the ICC released on Tuesday. “It also recognizes the rights and lived experiences of persons whom the Taliban perceived as not conforming with their ideological expectations of gender identity or expression, such as members of the LGBTQI+ community, and persons whom the Taliban perceived as allies of girls and women.”
A report that Outright International released in 2023 notes Taliban officials have systematically targeted LGBTQ people — especially gay men and transgender women.
Taliban officials have subjected them to physical and sexual assault as well as arbitrary detention. The Outright International report also notes Taliban authorities have carried out public floggings for alleged same-sex sexual relations, and have collected intelligence on LGBTQ activists and community members.
Artemis Akbary, executive director of the Afghanistan LGBTIQ Organization, praised the ICC.
“Today is a historic moment for LGBTIQ victims and survivors,” he said on social media.
El Salvador
#JusticiaParaKarla: una lucha por el derecho a la identidad en El Salvador
Karla Guevara inició su camino legal y personal en 2020

Cinco años han pasado desde que Karla Guevara inició un camino legal y personal para lograr que su nombre y género sean reconocidos en su Documento Único de Identidad (DUI). Cinco años de sentencias, apelaciones, puertas cerradas y vulneraciones que hoy se resumen en una sola palabra: resistencia.
En medio de un país que aún arrastra estructuras jurídicas y sociales poco sensibles a las realidades trans, Guevara se ha convertido en una voz visible. No solo por la denuncia pública de su caso, sino por su capacidad de transformar el dolor en acción: ha iniciado la campaña #JusticiaParaKarla, la cual acompaña con conversatorios llamados “Si tú fueras yo” en diferentes zonas del país.
Su historia se remonta al año 2018, cuando, junto a otras tres defensoras de derechos humanos —Mónica Hernández, Bianca Rodríguez y Verónica López— interpuso una demanda para lograr el cambio de nombre legal. La acción se inspiró en la Opinión Consultiva 24/17 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, que obligó a los Estados miembros de la OEA a garantizar los derechos de las personas trans, incluyendo el reconocimiento de su identidad.
A diferencia de sus compañeras, cuyo proceso fue resuelto favorablemente, Guevara fue la única a quien el Estado salvadoreño le negó el derecho, incluso tras contar con una sentencia favorable. El camino ha sido empinado, desgastante y doloroso, y ha implicado múltiples etapas legales con resoluciones contradictorias.
El 8 de enero de 2020, el juzgado declaró su demanda improponible. Guevara apeló el 22 de ese mismo mes, pero la Cámara de Familia desestimó su recurso. Aun así, perseveró. En abril de 2021 presentó una segunda apelación, y en septiembre se revocó la decisión del juzgado, ordenando admitir su demanda. Una pequeña luz parecía abrirse.
En agosto de 2022, después de varios peritajes que, según Guevara, incluyeron momentos donde se sintió expuesta y violentada, recibió una sentencia favorable: se autorizaba su cambio de nombre y género en la partida de nacimiento. Sin embargo, esta victoria fue parcial y breve. Aunque se ordenó marginar su partida, no se ordenó cancelarla como en otros casos similares.
El 4 de octubre de ese mismo año, la sentencia fue enviada al Registro del Estado Familiar. Pero la respuesta institucional fue sorprendente: el 3 de noviembre, la Alcaldía de San Salvador se negó a realizar el cambio. El jefe del registro y el registrador presentaron un amparo ante la Sala de lo Constitucional, paralizando el proceso.
“No solo me lo negaron, sino que ahora me exponen a un juicio aún mayor”, expresa Guevara. La frustración y la indignación fueron creciendo. En febrero de 2023, presentó una denuncia ante la Fiscalía General de la República, aunque lo hizo con poca esperanza. “Temía que no harían nada”, dijo. Y el 16 de abril de 2024, sus temores se confirmaron: la Fiscalía archivó el caso alegando que “no existe delito que perseguir”.
El 19 de noviembre de ese mismo año, Guevara decidió acudir a instancias internacionales y presentó su caso ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. La CIDH ya notificó al Estado salvadoreño y le otorgó un plazo de cuatro meses para responder por qué no ha ejecutado el cambio ordenado por el juzgado.
“Obviamente no van a dar respuesta”, lamenta Guevara. Lo dice con la voz entrecortada, como quien ya ha llorado mucho, pero no ha perdido la voluntad de hablar. Reconoce que el proceso le ha afectado emocionalmente. “Cada vez que hablo de esto se me corta la voz”.
Las heridas no solo vienen de las oficinas estatales, sino también de las calles. Las miradas, los comentarios, el momento de presentar el DUI en cualquier trámite. “Es como si cada vez tuviera que explicar mi existencia. Es un juicio constante sobre quién soy”.
Guevara no está sola. Reconoce que hay otras personas trans en la misma situación. “Lo preocupante es que solo pasa en algunas zonas del país. En otras ha habido casos exitosos”, afirma. La disparidad en el trato revela una preocupante arbitrariedad institucional.
Uno de esos casos exitosos es el de Valeria Mejía, coordinadora de monitoreo y evaluación de ASPIDH. Su DUI ya refleja su nombre identitario, aunque no su género.
“Cuando recibí mi DUI con el nombre que me identifico pensé: aquí empieza una nueva vida”, relata.
Para Mejía, el cambio fue profundamente simbólico. “Uno ve pasar toda su vida frente a los ojos. Toda la discriminación, todos los rechazos. Sentí que algo sanaba”. A pesar de ello, su género asignado al nacer sigue apareciendo en el documento, lo que le genera inseguridad.
“El problema es que tengo que ir a todas las instituciones donde aparezco con mi nombre anterior. En el Seguro Social, por ejemplo, aún estoy registrada con el nombre masculino y no pueden atenderme, aunque el número del DUI sea el mismo”, explica.
Casos como los de Guevara y Mejía visibilizan una problemática estructural: el Estado salvadoreño no garantiza de forma uniforme el derecho a la identidad de las personas trans. Las resoluciones favorables son solo el primer paso. Su implementación efectiva aún tropieza con prejuicios, burocracia y omisiones.
Con la campaña #JusticiaParaKarla, la activista busca más que una solución a su caso personal. Busca generar conciencia, exigir coherencia legal y empujar una transformación cultural. En la marcha del 17 de mayo contra la LGBTIfobia, su presencia se hizo notar con camisetas, banners y mensajes que interpelan directamente al sistema.
Guevara ha hecho de su cuerpo, su voz y su historia una herramienta de resistencia. En cada conversatorio de “Si tú fueras yo”, invita a imaginar, a empatizar, a incomodarse.
“Lo que me pasa a mí le puede pasar a cualquier persona trans. Y si el Estado no nos reconoce, nos niega también la posibilidad de existir plenamente”, expresa.
Hoy, la resolución está en manos de la CIDH y el tiempo corre. La lucha de Guevara ya no es solo por una partida de nacimiento. Es por el derecho a ser, a vivir sin miedo, a que el nombre que la representa no siga siendo un motivo de juicio, burla o rechazo.
Mientras tanto, sigue esperando. Sigue alzando la voz. Sigue sembrando esperanza en quienes vienen detrás. Porque como ella misma dice: “Esto no se trata solo de mí. Se trata de justicia”.
-
Federal Government1 day ago
Treasury Department has a gay secretary but LGBTQ staff are under siege
-
Virginia2 days ago
Defying trends, new LGBTQ center opens in rural Winchester, Va.
-
Opinions3 days ago
USAID’s demise: America’s global betrayal of trust with LGBTQ people
-
Travel4 days ago
Manchester is vibrant tapestry of culture, history, and Pride