On April 26, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta read out definitions of gender identities in the Supreme Court based on different sources. He mentioned that, as per the information available, there are gender identities that are based on mood swings.
SG Mehta said if the apex court was inclined to recognise same-sex marriage, it might need to take into account 72 different categories of sexual orientation that are claimed to exist. Around 160 provisions in different legislations deal with men and women differently. He questioned if the court would amend all these provisions with a constitutional declaration by reading “person” for “man” and “woman”. He further stated the right to marry does not give anyone the right to compel the state to create a new definition of marriage.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta explains the Supreme Court on various gender identities that exist and explains what Fluid gender means, also explains gender as per mood swings and surroundings [Watch]#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #SameGenderMarriage pic.twitter.com/BpwJBQoyTG
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) April 26, 2023
He questioned how the law would reconcile the recognition of the marriage of persons who do not identify with any particular gender. He said, “A person who does not identify with any gender is called agender, genderless…it is impossible to reconcile through a judgment..they refuse to be categorised in any gender identity…there are also people who change gender as per surroundings…Then there is gender as per mood swings…There is amic agender, where gender is changed as per the friends they have… engender, where gender identity fades in and out with intensity and comes back with another gender identity…These are facts without value judgment… will it be prudent to lay down regulations even if the Court gives them the status of marriage? This is inconceivable.”
SG Mehta was referring to the definitions of genders available on different websites. Medicinenet.com was mentioned in the footnote of the documents provided by SG Mehta. We checked the website for further information and found that the website claimed there are 72 “other genders” that include agender, abimegender, aerogender, alexigender, amicagender, autigender, astral gender, boyflux, cassflux, cisgender, demifluid, demiflux, epicene, girlflux, healgender, omnigender and so on.
The website further claimed that irrespective of a child’s anatomical identity, they may start to see themselves as a boy or girl at the age of 2 or 3. By the age 6 or 7, they become confident about their gender identity and by the age eight and above, they experience a “gender crisis”.
Furthermore, SG pointed out that when the Special Marriage Act was formed in 1954, the Parliament was well aware of homosexuality. However, it consciously avoided and deliberately left that aspect out of the SMA.
The arguments submitted by SG Mehta were shared by law portals. However, the video of the argument, which is available on the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel, irked the LGBTQIA+ community on social media.
Lawyer Robin Bhatt said, “This is hatemongering and moral panic caused in court by the Solicitor General from God knows where. This tweet amplifies hate and will cause violence against and harm to multiple LGBTQ people.” He urged Bar and Bench to remove the video.
This is hatemongering and moral panic caused in court by the Solicitor General from God knows where. This tweet amplifies hate and will cause violence against and harm to multiple LGBTQ people. @barandbench please take this down. cc-@shishirar @ https://t.co/hOkn3BNhjM
— Rohin Bhatt🏳️🌈 (@BhattRohin) April 26, 2023
Another lawyer Anmol said, “This is clear misinformation with a dubious source. It trivialises trans identities as being based on “mood swings and surroundings”. Bar and Bench is responsible for accurately reporting on court proceedings. Putting up the video w/o context is using the platform for fake news.”
This is clear misinformation with a dubious source. It trivializes trans identities as being based on "mood swings and surroundings".@barandbench has a responsibility to report on court proceedings accurately. Putting up the video w/o context is using the platform for fake news. https://t.co/8xJOfjXLtu
— Anmol (@Anmolg_law) April 26, 2023
Twitter user Satyam Sinha said, “This is hate speech at its best. Source of facts mentioned in this speech is “trust me bro” at its best. I’m all for taking sides in a debate but making a spectacle of queer people to argue against the demand of a gender-neutral law.” Interestingly, they mentioned the source during the argument, which Sinha seemed to have ignored.
This is hate speech at it's best. Source of facts mentioned in this speech is "trust me bro" at its best. I'm all for taking sides in a debate but making a spectacle of queer people to argue against the demand of a gender neutral law. https://t.co/M2z6TCja25
— Satyam sinha (@Babuatwitts) April 26, 2023
Deepak Dhananjaya said, “Privilege is what SG is referring to “mood swing based gender identity” just like women’s anger was attributed to PMS by patriarchal men! WhTs most disturbing is the comment section! Ignorance of marginalised experiences and basic rights! Opened up space to be openly homophobic!”
Privilege is what SG is referring to “mood swing based gender identity” just like women’s anger was attributed to PMS by patriarchal men! WhTs most disturbing is comment section! Ignorance to marginalised experiences and basic rights! Opened up space to be openly homophobic! https://t.co/M5IOxNC6Hs
— 🌈 deepak dhananjaya (@deepdhan) April 26, 2023
While the LGBTQIA+ activists deny the argument SG Mehta put up, multiple online sources make the same arguments that he did. ABC News, Healthline, Women’s Health Magazine, and even Wikipedia have listed these on their websites.
The Supreme Court has formed a 5-judge constitution bench to fast-track the hearing on the matter related to giving recognition to same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act. SG Mehta was presenting the government’s stand on the same matter.
