Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Tamil Nadu government has released a new policy for transgender and intersex persons, three years after the drafting process began and amid sustained legal and community pressure. But several trans rights activists have criticised the policy, calling it vague, unambitious, and exclusionary citing the absence of horizontal reservation, lack of specificity in implementation mechanisms, and erasure of transmasculine and intersex identities.
Horizontal reservation would provide a quota within quota for trans and intersex persons, which means they can avail separate reservation in the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and general categories.
The policy, titled State Policy for Transgender Persons 2025, was released by the Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department on July 31. It comes a year after the government abandoned its earlier plan to draft a unified LGBTQIA+ policy, following protests by trans women activists and concerns raised at public consultations across the state.
TNM spoke to queer rights activists, as well as officials from the Social Welfare Department, to understand what the policy contains, how it was framed, and why many in the community say it does not go far enough.
In early drafts circulated by the Tamil Nadu State Planning Commission, the state had proposed a broader LGBTQIA+ policy that included 1% horizontal reservation in education and employment for transgender and intersex persons, and expanded health insurance access under the Chief Minister’s scheme. However, at a key consultation in January 2024, activists including Grace Banu and Kalki Subramaniam demanded a separate transgender policy, citing the historical marginalisation of trans and intersex persons.
The matter reached the Madras High Court in February 2024, where Justice N Anand Venkatesh noted the submission of two separate drafts — one for transgender persons and another for LGBTQIA+ persons. The court granted the state three months to conduct wider consultations and finalise the transgender policy, calling it a potentially landmark initiative in the country.
The final policy outlines several areas of intervention: inclusive education, employment, healthcare access, housing, legal recognition, civic participation, and cultural inclusion.
In education, the policy promises inclusive admission procedures, gender-neutral toilets and hostels, scholarships, and curriculum changes. Institutions must appoint liaison officers to handle grievances.
Employment reforms include self-employment schemes, non-discriminatory hiring, protection from career disruption, and CSR support through the Transgender Welfare Board.
In healthcare, the policy promises free gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapy in government hospitals, sensitisation of medical staff, and expanded insurance coverage. Separate hospital wards are to be created for transgender and intersex persons.
Housing support includes short-stay homes, inclusive housing schemes, and allocation of government land for community housing. Legal rights include self-identification without medical certification, simplified documentation, and access to legal aid.
Implementation will be monitored by the Tamil Nadu Transgender Welfare Board and two new oversight committees at the state and district level. Grievance redressal officers are to be appointed in all institutions, and high-level review meetings will be held every three to six months.
Despite its scope, the policy has drawn strong criticism from members of the transgender community — particularly for omitting key structural reforms like horizontal reservation, failing to represent trans men and intersex persons, and lacking clarity on implementation.
“We are grateful that our demand for a separate policy has been accepted,” said transgender rights activist Grace Banu. “But while the document includes a lot of concepts, many crucial aspects remain unclear. Our main demand was 1% horizontal reservation in education and employment — but it is not even mentioned. Without a clear reservation framework, how can we access any of the promises made?”
Calling the policy symbolic without structural change, she said, “This would just be an empty paper without reservation. And without reservation, there is no dignity.”
Actor and activist Negha also pointed to glaring issues. “There isn’t even a single mention of horizontal reservation — not a word. That was one of the most fundamental demands from the community. Also, the Tamil version of the policy calls it ‘Thirunangaiyar Policy’, which literally means ‘trans women’s policy’, but then bizarrely defines it to include trans men and intersex persons too. That’s deeply misleading.”
Negha added, “We’re also wondering what happened to the broader LGBTQIA+ policy. That conversation seems to have disappeared.”
Writer and activist Nadika questioned the lack of direction. “What is the specificity of this policy? It mentions jobs, education, and representation, but there’s no clarity on how those will be implemented. And what’s the point of talking about representation without reservation?”
“The translation is poor,” she said, commenting on the Tamil language version of the policy. “It reflects a very traditional understanding of transgender identities — hijra, kothi. There is no space for trans men, gender non-conforming, or non-binary people. Even within the trans community, different groups have different needs, and none of that is addressed,” Nadika said.
Trans rights activist Fred Rogers said the policy offers “no depth” and reads like a “patchwork of old promises.” “There’s no mention of trans men in the Tamil guide, no protocols, no WPATH references. Even government officers think trans men are just confused women.” The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has prescribed global medical standards, and Fred has been demanding for a longtime that Tamil Nadu Health and Family Welfare Department adopt technical and operational protocols for gender-affirming care in line with WPATH’s Standards of Care.
He added, “Without clear protocols, trans persons face repeated denial in hospitals. Trans men are a minority within minorities — we need more representation, not less. Unless we have reservations, how can we compete with cis people?”
Activist Rizwan Bharathy also expressed disappointment. “Is this what we worked for over three years? It just reads like an essay written by a cishet person. There was no consultation with trans men or intersex persons. And now we have this separate document with no clarity on what happened to the LGBTQIA+ policy.”
Intersex activist Vino said there has been a complete erasure of intersex persons and identities from the policy. “There is nothing in this policy to talk about,” Vino said.
When asked about the absence of reservation, an official from the Social Welfare Department told TNM, “The matter of 1% horizontal reservation is still under discussion.”
Responding to questions about implementation, the official said, “A Chief Secretary-led review meeting will be held every six months, and District Collectors will hold quarterly meetings. If there are any recommendations, they can be submitted there.”
On the perceived overlap of bodies, the official clarified, “The Transgender Welfare Board is a separate entity. The state and district-level committees will frame and execute action plans, while the Welfare Board will monitor their functioning.”
Meanwhile, the policy was formally submitted to the Madras High Court on August 4, 2025, during a hearing in the ongoing case Sushma vs Commissioner of Police & Others, which has been instrumental in pushing the state towards institutional reforms for LGBTQIA+ rights.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh, who is hearing the case, made pointed observations about the limitations of the current policy and directed the Tamil Nadu government to act on specific pending concerns — particularly around horizontal reservation and community representation in monitoring bodies.
“It is not clear whether the Government intends to provide horizontal reservation to transgender and intersex persons — a long-standing demand of the community that has already been upheld in several judicial pronouncements,” he said and directed the state to take a clear stand. “The Government must decide so that transgender and intersex persons need not knock on the doors of this Court every time to seek reservation in public employment and educational institutions.”
The court also flagged issues with the structure of the oversight committees proposed in the policy. “The State must ensure that there is representation of at least one trans woman, trans man, and intersex person in both the state and district-level committees. This is essential for the policy’s effective functioning,” the court said, adding that necessary notifications should be issued without delay.
Further, the court took note of community requests to rename the policy in Tamil from ‘Thirunangaiyar Kolgai’ (Transgender women policy) to ‘Thirunar matrum Idaipalinathavar Kolgai’ (Transgender persons and intersex persons policy). The judge said this was a reasonable suggestion that the state should seriously consider.
Lastly, Justice Venkatesh reminded the government of its earlier commitment to draft a separate policy for LGBQA+ persons, and urged that the process to do so be expedited now that the transgender and intersex policy has been published.
