Sexual minorities are at a risk for developing emotional disorders because of

the stigma and discrimination7. Suicide risk has been shown to be greatly
elevated for men in same-sex partnerships in Denmark8. Transgenders were
forced out of their homes or chose to leave home because of parental
rejection or fear of rejection, increasing their risk of homelessness, poverty,
and associated negative sequelae.. They are physically, verbally, and sexually
abused5, which gets manifested as depression, panic attacks, suicidal
ideation, psychological distress, body image disturbance and eating
disorders10. Sexual minority adolescents leave home more frequently in
search of their identity, and are victimized and forced for sex more often11.
They use highly addictive substances more frequently to overcome their
sorrows12and have more sexual partners than their heterosexual
counterparts13. Heavy alcohol drinking and use of drugs remain a significant
public health problem in this population14. High level of discrimination may
underlie the observations of greater psychiatric morbidity risk among sexual
minorities15.

Koken JA, Bimbi DS, Parsons JT. Experiences of familial acceptance -

rejection among transwomen of color. J Fam Psychol. 2009;23:853–60

Because of the stigma associated with transgenderism, many transwomen

(biological males who identify as female or transgender) experience
rejection or abuse at the hands of their parents and primary caregivers as
children and adolescents. The Parental Acceptance–Rejection (PAR) theory
indicates that a child's experience of rejection may have a significant impact
on their adult lives. The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative
analysis of adult transwomen of color's experiences with caregivers, guided
by PAR theory.
Koken JA, Bimbi DS, Parsons JT. Experiences of familial acceptance -
rejection among transwomen of color. J Fam Psychol. 2009;23:853–60

Keywords: transgender women, family relationships, parental acceptance-

rejection theory (PAR theory), stigma, gender identity.

The theory of Parental Acceptance–Rejection (PAR; Rohner, 2004) provides

a useful framework for analyzing the experiences of transwomen with their
parents and major caregivers. The term ‘parent’ as used in PAR refers not
just to biological mothers and fathers, but to any significant caregiver who
bears substantial responsibility for raising offspring. This includes step-
parents, grandparents, and other close family members such as siblings, aunts
or uncles, if they play a significant role in the life of the child (Rohner,
Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2005).

PAR theory conceptualizes the perceived acceptance–rejection of children

across four domains: warmth–affection, hostility–aggression, indifference–
neglect, and undifferentiated rejection (Rohner, 2004; Rohner et al., 2005).

Analytic Strategy

A three-member coding team comprised of the study Project Director/Co-

Principal Investigator (second author) and two volunteer research assistants
met to review and discuss the codes, practice coding sections of transcripts,
and resolve any discrepancies through discussion and revision of the
codebook. Following this, each member of the coding team individually
coded the same interview transcript. Using the procedure recommended
by Smith (2000), intercoder reliability was established by multiplying the
number of matching codes among the three coders by the number of coders,
then dividing by the sum of number of codes applied by all coders. When the
inter-coder reliability reached 90% among the three coders, interview
transcripts were downloaded into QSR NVIVO 8, a qualitative analytic
software program, and thematic codes were applied to each interview
according to the established codebook.
Results
Twenty transwomen participated in this initial pilot phase of the larger CDC-
funded project. The mean age of the sample was 32 years (SD = 10.43, range
= 18–55) and was almost equally divided between Latina and African
American transwomen, the majority of whom had a low level of educational
attainment and a high level of unemployment. The mean age initial
transgender awareness was about 10 years old (M = 9.95, SD = 4.85, range =
4–19), and the mean age of first disclosure of transgender status was 15 years
old (SD= 4.98, range = 6–30).

“you're not a fucking girl:” Parental Hostility–Aggression

Eight of 20 participants (40%) described family experiences that were

classified as hostility–aggression. The negative responses took the form of
verbal abuse, physical violence, and being forced out of their home. One
participant discussed the reaction of her mother to her disclosure of being
transgender

The Development and Status of Sexual Orientation Discrimination under

International Human Rights Law
Section 2 examines the rise of sexual orientation discrimination within
international human rights law. Section 3 examines developments within
the UN human rights systems, whilst Section 4 examines developments in
the regional human rights systems. In Section 5 consideration is given to
support for and opposition to sexual orientation discrimination as a human
rights issue at the national level. The evidence relates to a series of critical
thematic areas—criminalization of homosexual activities and the
introduction of homophobic hate crimes, the express prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, Gay Pride marches and
homosexual propaganda laws, and persecution on grounds of sexual
orientation in the context of asylum and refugees. In Sections 2–5 the
predominant focus is on international, regional and national jurisprudence
and legislative developments. Reference is also made to significant political,
institutional and policy developments as well as intergovernmental
organizations and civil society initiatives.

‘Human Rights and Sexual Orientation in International Law’ (2002)

25 International Journal of Public Administration 13; Kirby, ‘Sexuality and
International Law: The New Dimension’ (2014) European Human Rights Law
Review 350

Over time, however, efforts shifted to focusing on sexual orientation as a separate and
distinct ground of discrimination. In this non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
have played their part although sustained efforts had to be made to persuade national
and international human rights NGOs to take on sexual orientation issues as part of
their agendas.

On debates with human rights NGOs on including sexual orientation issues,

see Mertus, supra n 18. Particularly important in strategic terms was
recognition by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as the so-
called gatekeepers of the NGO movement: Mertus, supra n 18 at 1044–8.

The centre of the debate in normative terms has been whether the treatment of
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation should be considered on a par with
established grounds such as racial or gender discrimination. To some extent the
process of interpretation for national, regional and international bodies was easy—
human rights are usually stated to apply to ‘everyone’. Provisions prohibiting
discrimination tend to follow the pattern of an open list and a reference to ‘sex’ and to
‘other status’.

A new law for India's sexual minorities

The Delhi high court reinterpreted section 377 of the Indian penal code –
India's anti-sodomy law. The court decided that a law that criminalises private
consensual sexual acts between adults violates rights enshrined in the Indian
constitution. This historic ruling was a significant step towards providing legal
protection to India's sexual minorities.

the supreme court refused to put the high court's decision on hold, and asked
the government to take a definite stand on the issue. The rights of 17% of the
world's sexual minorities depend on the outcome. So what is the best-case
scenario?

The background to the continuing court battle is that in 2001 the Naz
Foundation filed a petition before the high court challenging the constitutional
validity of Section 377. It asked the court to "read down" section 377. "Reading
down" gives the law a narrower interpretation by decriminalising private
consensual sexual relations between adults. The law continues to exist, but
with limited application. Feminist and queer commentators, while supporting
the cause, have criticised the petition.

reading down also leaves existing sexual categories untouched. It fails to

protect those who do not or cannot conform to limited definitions of sexual
orientation. Hijra, for example, is a gender identity that is often regarded as a
"third sex". It defies the notion of two sexes that is implicit in both
heterosexual and homosexual orientations.

Naz's focus on privacy is also controversial. As the law stands, two men cannot
have private sexual relations because homosexuality cannot be conducted
within "the right kind of privacy" provided by a heterosexual marriage. Naz
wants homosexual relations to be included among those privileged private
relations that are legally protected. When privacy is understood in its broader
social context, it becomes clear that sexual minorities cannot even hope to
enjoy its benefits, however. Privacy is not the reality for most Indians outside
the upper and middle classes. They simply cannot afford it. Since the homes of
hijras are viewed as public "brothels", police can walk in without even a
warrant.

There are considerable difficulties in merely reading down section 377. Three
directions for legal reform could overcome them.

First, a law dealing with the sexual abuse of children should be created. As the
sole mechanism for prosecuting child sexual abuse, section 377 is inadequate.
Child rights advocates have campaigned for a separate law that addresses the
needs of abused children. These are currently overlooked due to section 377's
emphasis on "unnatural" acts.

Second, section 377 should be completely repealed and not just read down.
Reading down is undoubtedly a positive step insofar as it softens the brunt of
the law. It is a testament to remarkable advocacy on part of countless activists.
Nevertheless, it is not the best-case scenario. The supreme court, on appeal,
(or the government before then) would be best advised to repeal the law
altogether and start anew. This would be the symbolic destruction of an
oppressive colonial-era law. Significantly, it would also create an opportunity
to reconceptualise state regulation of sexuality. A new legal regime will
probably be no worse than the present. If the political moment is right (say,
if India hopes to impress a more liberal White House), it may well be better.

Third, there is a need for a broader conceptual shift in the understanding of

sexuality and sexual assault. The law should reject moralistic hierarchies and
recognise sexuality as a positive aspect of human life. The aim of sexual
assault laws should also shift from protecting the "modesty" of women and
children towards a consent-based approach.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/21/india-gay-rights-law

Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code dating back to
1861,[1] introduced during the British rule of India (modelled on the
Buggery Act of 1533,[2]) criminalises sexual activities "against the
order of nature", arguably including homosexual sexual activities.
The section was decriminalized with respect to sex between
consenting adults by the High Court of Delhi on July 2009. That
judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court of Indiaon 11
December 2013 with the Court holding that amending or repealing
Section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.
On 6 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition
submitted by the Naz Foundation and others came for hearing in the
Supreme Court. The three-member bench headed by then the Chief
Justice of India T. S. Thakur said that all the 8 curative petitions
submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional
bench.
On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Privacy
was a fundamental right, called for equality and condemned
discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at
the core of the fundamental rights and that the rights of the LGBT
population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine.

1. ^ a b c d e "History – Delhi HC". delhihighcourt.nic.in. Retrieved 2 March 2012.

2. ^ "The High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947)" (PDF). Www.delhihighcourt.nic.in. Retrieved
4 October 2017.

Sexual orientation
A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter; sexual
orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the
opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to
the same sex on the other.

‘Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual

orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of
the individual.
'India’s Supreme Court has issued a historic ruling confirming
the right of the country’s LGBT people to express their sexuality
without discrimination.

The ruling paves the way for discriminatory practices against

LGBT people to be challenged in the courts.

The Supreme Court’s judgment read: “Sexual orientation is an

essential attribute of privacy.

One of the first laws to be amended after the ruling could be the
controversial Section 377 of the country’s penal code, which
bans sexual activity that is “against the order of nature”. Many
have interpreted the wording to include gay sex.

In 2009 the section was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi,

but that verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court, which
said it was the responsibility of Parliament, not the judiciary, to
change the law. Another legal challenge to Section 377 is
currently underway.

The latest Supreme Court ruling confirming the freedom to

express sexual orientation formed part of a wider case assessing
whether privacy was a fundamental right for the 1.3 billion
people living in India. The nine-judge panel decided it should be
considered as part of the right to life and liberty enshrined in the
country’s constitution.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-orientation-and-gender-
identity-terminology-and-definitions

Sexual orientation differs from gender identity in that gender identity

describes a person’s psychological identification with a particular
gender, rather than their attraction to people. The Kinsey Scale—
developed in 1948 by Doctors Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and
Clyde Martin organizes sexuality into a gradient scale of 0 to 6, with 0
representing exclusive heterosexuality and 6 indicating exclusive
homosexuality. The numbers in between indicate varying levels of
bisexuality. The scale is based on sexual experiences, and therefore
each number accounts for how different instances of heterosexual or
homosexual interactions imply one’s sexual orientation. Though the
Kinsey scale is still referenced in modern literature, more current
models (such as the Klein sexual orientations grid and Storms scale)
have been developed to further explore the range of sexual
orientations.3 All of these models reveal that sexuality lies on a
continuum, not in separate boxes, and that it can flow and change
over the course of a person’s life.2 However, if a person’s sexuality
changes, it does not mean that sexual orientation is a “choice” or
“preference” as it cannot be altered at will. Sexual identity is inborn,
and one need not have any sexual experience in order to understand
it.

For most sexual minorities, the process of coming out is a way for
individuals to find self-acceptance, community, and access to more
romantic and sexual partners. Interviews with a selected group of
asexual individuals has given researchers a closer look at how
asexuals experience coming out to themselves, their friends, and their
family. During the study, many reported that coming out was an
essential step toward embracing their identity, while others
feared/experienced rejection or de-legitimization from those they
opened up to. Asexual individuals may require more awareness of
their sexual feelings (or lack thereof) than most other sexual
orientations, as information on asexuality is notably less prevalent.
However, upon discovering asexuality, many find joy and relief in
finally having a term with which to describe themselves.9 Feeling a
lack of sexual attraction to others is deemed to be outside of the norm,
and is not well understood (and as such, often stigmatized) by those
who do experience sexual attraction. People may not think that it is
possible not to desire sex simply because a larger portion of the
population enjoys and seeks it. Although some believe that asexual
people have simply “not met the right person” or refuse to believe in its
existence at all, asexuality is a recognized and legitimate sexual
orientation, and coming out as such is an important part of self-
acceptance, understanding, and possession of a positive identity.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/overview-sexual-
orientations