In his proclamation for National Child Abuse Prevention Month, rather than addressing real threats to children like the federal government should do, United States President Donald J. Trump focused almost exclusively on attacking supporters of transgender youth. He declared broadly defined “gender ideology” as “one of the most prevalent forms of child abuse” and labeled gender-affirming care as “evil”.
Gender-affirming care is recognized as the gold standard of medical care for transgender youth by majormedicalassociations. This care consists of social practices (changes to one’s name, wardrobe, etc.) to mental health counseling to medical interventions, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapies. In all, the care emphasizes a personalized, multidisciplinary, and gradual approach. Studiesdemonstrate that youth receiving this care experience 60 percent lower odds of depression and 73 percent lower odds of suicidality, with approximately 98 percent of youth continuing this care into adulthood.
Contrary to the proclamation’s assertions about the prevalence of gender-affirming care, a dataset of private insurance claims from 2018-2022 covering more than 5 million adolescents found that less than 3,000 transgender youth had access to puberty blockers or hormone therapies. Currently, 27 states ban some form of gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
A January 28, 2025, executive order aims to withdraw federal funds and support for such care to people younger than 19.
The proclamation’s language also echoes state-level efforts to weaponize child welfare systems against supportive families of transgender youth. In 2022, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered state agenciesto investigate parents whose children receive gender-affirming care, jeopardizing their custodial rights. This year, Texas and Montana advanced legislation to classify some or all gender-affirming care as child abuse.
In it, the CNMP, the national body that oversees the country’s prosecutors in Brazil, offers detailed guidelines for tackling school violence and emphasizes the importance of combating structural racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of discrimination. Crucially, it also defends teachers’ freedom to educate students about these topics.
The recommendation comes at a crucial moment, as human rights and sexuality education have faced continuous attacks for over a decade in Brazil. Lawmakers, officials, and anti-rights groups have weaponized education for political gain, claiming that discussions of racism, gender, sexuality, diversity, and other important topics constitute “indoctrination” or “gender ideology.”
The fallacious discourse of so-called “gender ideology” emerged in the 1990s, created by ultraconservative Catholic movements to attack advances for the rights of women and LGBT people at UN. In recent years, the far-right has adopted this language to promote moral panic and discredit public policies to tackle inequality.
The CNMP’s recommendation also comes in the context of a wider crisis of school violence in Brazil. In 2023, a series of brutal killings in schools led the government to characterize the phenomenon as an “epidemic” and to adopt measures to tackle it. Experts have highlighted that, in addition to factors such as harmful online content and isolation during the pandemic, harassment of teachers and attacks on inclusive education exacerbate the problem.
Suppressing discussions on human rights and sexuality undermines efforts to create an anti-discriminatory culture that can overcome violent practices and promote mutual understanding in schools and beyond.
The recommendation is not binding but offers normative guidance on how prosecutors should act when faced with attacks on human rights and sexuality education by urging them to develop rules, processes, and structures to support teachers and students. The recommendation can also help weaken efforts by some prosecutors who may act against this protected educational material for ideological reasons.
In a 2022 report, Human Rights Watch analyzed more than 200 bills and laws passed at the federal, state, and municipal levels that aim to ban discussions on gender and sexuality in schools, based on research conducted by Fernanda Moura and Renata Aquino. Teachers we interviewed have faced harassment from elected officials and community members, as well as lawsuits for addressing these topics, with some summoned to provide statements to police or other authorities.
For years, Brazilian education experts and advocacy groups, such as the Coalition against Ultraconservatism in Education, Educational Action, and Teachers Against School Without Party have also been warning about these heinous attacks.
In 2018 and 2022, 80 education and human rights organizations in Brazil published and updated a manual to protect teachers in response to attempts to ban discussions in schools about gender, race, sexuality, and critical perspectives on Brazilian history and inequality, as well as in response to the increase in the harassment, threats, censorship, and harassment via the courts, of education professionals.
Despite these challenges, progress has been made, much of it due to the actions of organized sectors of civil society. In 2020 and 2024, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that laws aimed at banning or silencing human rights and sexuality education were unconstitutional, ordering the Brazilian state to promote these topics as a way of combating the sexual abuse of children and adolescents and violence against girls, women and LGBT people.
In October 2023, the Chamber of Deputies held the first public hearing on harassment against teachers for topics covered in the classroom. In 2023, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Human Rights supported the launch of the National Observatory on Violence against Educators to study the harassment and censorship of teachers.
In response to the wave of school violence, the government also announced a series of measures to support schools, including the provision of additional funding for security training, infrastructure and equipment. The government also created a Technical Working Group to Combat Bullying, Prejudice and Discrimination in Education. The group aims to give effect to a Supreme Court decision that ordered the creation of policies to prevent and combat discrimination based on gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools.
The new CNMP recommendation is another step in the right direction and responds to the desire expressed by the Brazilian population in the Education, Values and Rights survey (2022): 73% of people said they were in favor of sexual education in schools and more than 90% understand that it is essential to prevent sexual abuse of children and adolescents.
State and municipal legislatures should repeal or reject any laws or bills that aim to ban education on human rights and sexuality. In addition, education departments should offer robust support to education professionals, ensuring that they feel confident and protected when teaching this essential content. Only in this way will Brazil be able to effectively combat the structural causes that fuel school violence and create an environment where students and educators can develop a critical and creative education, free from prejudice, discrimination and violence.
In a significant step toward affirming the rights of transgender people in Poland, the country’s Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling that eliminates the requirement for trans people to involve their parents in gender recognition proceedings.
Until now, transgender individuals – whether child or adult – seeking to change their gender marker on official documents were required to sue their parents. This was due to a convoluted legal claim that there needs to be two opposing parties in any civil action, which seeking to change a gender marker is classified as. This added unnecessary distress and legal complexities, including for trans people whose parents have died.
The ruling, welcomed by Polish civil society organizations including Campaign against Homophobiaand Trans-Fuzja Foundation, underscores the need for Poland to streamline gender recognition procedures, aligning them more closely with international human rights standards. Indeed, uncertainties remain, including whether married transgender people must divorce in order to obtain legal gender recognition, since Polish law, despite human rights obligations otherwise, does not recognize same-sex marriages.
This ruling comes at a time when trans rights in Poland remain a contentious issue. Far-right rhetoricdenigrates gender identity recognition and broader lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Poland, rejecting international and European standards, as well as evolving medical consensus. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health has long advocated for simplified gender recognition procedures, warning that onerous barriers can “harm physical and mental health.”
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Poland is a party, guarantees the rights to privacy and to equal recognition before the law, which incorporate the right to legal gender recognition, free from harmful or disproportionate obstacles.
The European Court of Human Rights, has in multiple judgements stated that states have “a positive obligation to provide quick, transparent and accessible procedures” for changing registered sex markers and failure to do so violates the right to private life. The European Union’s LGBTIQ Equality Strategy (2020-2025) similarly promotes “accessible legal gender recognition based on self-determination and without age restriction.”
While Poland’s progress is commendable, the battle for trans rights is far from over. Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who promisedduring his campaign to introduce a simplified gender recognition process, now has an opportunity to follow through in consultation with Polish trans people. His government should act swiftly to introduce legislation upholding trans people’s full right to self-identification, free from onerous requirements.
(Amsterdam) – Candidates for the presidency of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) failed to adequately address human rights and good governance in documents outlining their proposed programs, in advance of March elections, the Sport & Rights Alliance said today.
“The International Olympic Committee affects the lives of millions of athletes, workers, fans, journalists and communities worldwide,” said Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch. “It is essential for candidates who want to oversee global sport to make clear that they will uphold the IOC’s human rights framework, commitments and responsibilities, and commit to meeting with stakeholders and operating with transparency and good governance.”
The next eight years will bring a wave of challenges for the IOC, including selecting the host for the 2036 Olympic and Paralympic Games and delivering the 2028 Games in the United States, where international human rights are currently under threat, it is paramount for the next president to not only uphold but champion human rights and good governance throughout their term. IOC members who will vote for the next president should consider candidates’ commitments and track records on human rights and transparency as they cast their vote.
“In times when the principles of the rule of law are under pressure globally, the standard of good governance in sports becomes a key to supporting transparency, accountability and respect for human rights,” said Tor Dølvik, special adviser at Transparency International Norway. “This is critical because the Olympic movement has an enormous impact on the world even beyond sports, especially on young people.”
The election, at the 144th IOC Session on March 19-21 in Greece, is the first since the IOC added amendments recognizing its responsibility to uphold “respect for internationally recognized human rights” to the Olympic Charter. The IOC also adopted its Strategic Framework on Human Rightsin 2022, which sets out four-year objectives and actions to ensure the IOC respects human rights as an organization, as owner of the Olympic Games, and as leader of the Olympic Movement.
“Given that this is the first time a new president will be elected under the new Olympic Charter, it is deeply troubling that so few of the candidates have even mentioned human rights in their election campaigns,” said Steve Cockburn, head of labor rights and sport at Amnesty International. “At a time when rights are under sustained attack, we deserve to know whether the next IOC President will be ready and willing to put freedom, equality, and dignity at the heart of world sport.”
The Sport & Rights Alliance analyzed the formal written proposed programs submitted by the seven candidates, as required by the IOC. The alliance also wrote to each of the candidates, though only received responses from HRH Prince Feisal Al Hussein of Jordan, Lord Sebastian Coe, and Morinari Watanabe. As stakeholder engagement is foundational to the ability of any organization—and any leader—to uphold their human rights responsibilities, it is concerning that only these three candidates took the time to respond, the alliance said.
David Lappartient was the only candidate to address human rights in any depth throughout his program, highlighting the need to “leverage our influence to promote compliance with human and labour rights.” The programs of Johan Eliasch, Hussein, and Coe did mention human rights, but only in relation to ensuring access to play sport. In written responses to the Sprot & Rights Alliance, however:
Hussein said that he plans to strengthen the IOC’s efforts through updating the Strategic Framework as part of Olympic Agenda 2036 and proposed to meet with the Alliance whether he is elected or not.
Coecited the human rights initiatives of World Athletics, saying that these were introduced under his presidency and should generate confidence toward his commitments.
Watanabe responded to each of the Alliance’s questions on human rights issues, presenting ideas to mitigate human rights and governance issues ranging from hosting the Games in multiple separate countries to bringing in third-party monitoring.
“There is no doubt that the right to participate in sport is incredibly important, but it is also just the beginning of advancing human rights in and through sport,” said Ginous Alford, director of sport and human rights at World Players Association. “Human rights should not be seen as constraints on the IOC, but rather as cardinal values to help navigate the organization through the many geopolitical, social and economic challenges ahead.”
The IOC has long neglected to recognize athletes’ rights as workers to organize and collectively bargain, which would allow athletes an equal say on all matters affecting their careers, wellbeing, and livelihoods. While Coe, Hussein, Lappartient, and Eliasch mentioned athletes’ voice and participation in policymaking in their programs, none mentioned union representation or collective bargaining.
“World Players’ recent public polling shows broad support for the IOC to change its business model and governance to include athlete voices and pay them fairly for their work,” said Matthew Graham, head of UNI World Players. “If the IOC is to keep up with the demands and expectations of all stakeholders in the modern professional sport era, the next president must prioritize embedding the fundamental rights of athletes—not forgetting that this includes labor rights—and recognizing athletes’ hard work and dedication.”
Several proposals addressed the need to protect athletes’ wellbeing, but only two provided specific strategies. Watanabe focused on improving the IOC’s Integrity and Compliance Hotline, and Hussein made several proposals including integrating “safe sport” into all International Federations and National Olympic Committees and ensuring safeguarding training is available in multiple languages.
“The next IOC president must realize that true and effective safeguarding is not possible without athlete voices,” said Andrea Florence, director of the Sport & Rights Alliance. “Current ‘safe sport’ approaches continue to lack consultation, support and confidentiality with and for affected people. This needs to change.”
None of the candidates addressed lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) rights, though Lappartient did discuss the participation of transgender athletes in his section on inclusion and diversity, emphasizing the need to balance “respect for human rights” with “fair competition” and to make decisions “grounded on solid scientific evidence.” In contrast, the proposals by Juan Antonio Samaranch, Eliasch, and Coe call for “safeguarding” women’s categories in terms that are at odds with the recommendations of the IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination.
“At a time when the rights of LGBTI people—and especially athletes—are under attack around the world, these positions from the IOC presidential candidates are extremely concerning,” said Gurchaten Sandhu, director of programs at ILGA World. “The IOC has done incredible work over the last few years to consult with athletes, understand the research, and set clear, rights-based guidelines by adopting the IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination. Electing any president who plans to discard these important achievements would have a tremendous negative impact on the lives and safety of trans, intersex, and gender-diverse athletes at all levels, including youth.”
Regarding workers’ rights, Lappartient praised the social charter negotiated between businesses and workers at Paris 2024 and expressed the desire to replicate it at future Olympic Games, but none of the other candidates mentioned labor rights or any concerns for workers, including migrant workers, who will help deliver many future Olympic Games.
The candidates also neglected press freedom and safety for journalists though Kirsty Coventry cited a need to improve communication, access and openness to scrutiny. Watanabe proposed splitting Olympics hosts between five continents and to “obtain a commitment [to prevent labor exploitation] from the government” of cities bidding for the Games.
But none of the candidates said that the IOC should assess potential host cities’ commitment to human rights in the selection processes. This longstanding failure to do proper human rights due diligence in advance of awarding events has been a source of serious human rights violations in the past.
To read the Sport & Rights Alliance’s letter to the candidates, please click here.
***
The Sport & Rights Alliance’s mission is to promote the rights and well-being of those most affected by human rights risks associated with the delivery of sport. Its partners include Amnesty International, The Army of SurvivorsCommittee to Protect Journalists, Football Supporters Europe, Human Rights Watch, ILGA World (The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association), the International Trade Union Confederation, Transparency International, and World Players Association, UNI Global Union. As a global coalition of leading nongovernmental organizations and trade unions, the Sport & Rights Alliance works together to ensure sports bodies, governments, and other relevant stakeholders give rise to a world of sport that protects, respects, and fulfills international standards for human rights, labor rights, child wellbeing and safeguarding, and anti-corruption.
In the face of anti-trans legislation sweeping the country over the past four years, California stepped up to protect trans people and in particular trans youth. In 2022, the state became the first in the nation to create a sanctuary for transgender youth seeking gender-affirming medical care.
But with President Donald Trump issuing an anti-trans executive order on his first day in office, California will need to bolster its legal efforts to protect these vulnerable youths further. Nowhere is that protection more lacking than for intersex kids at birth and in early childhood.
Intersex children are born with chromosomes, gonads, hormone function or internal or external sex organs that don’t match typical social expectations of males or females. Since the 1960s, doctors in the U.S. and around the world have routinely performed surgery to standardize the bodies of infants and children so that they are aligned with social gender norms. The protocol was developed largely on the unproven recommendations of a single psychologist and has been carried out countless times since on intersex children long before they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want the procedures.
These irreversible nonconsensual surgeries are medically unnecessary to perform at such a young age, and as research has shown, carry a significant risk of trauma and other forms of lifelong harm, including a loss of sexual function, incontinence, chronic pain, scarring and early-onset osteoporosis. As a 2017 paper by three former U.S. surgeons general concluded, “In short, surgeries whose purpose is to ensure physical and psychological health too often lead to the opposite result.” In the waning days of the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged as much, publishing a landmark report on intersex health equity that called for an end to the practice. However, given Trump’s declaration that there are only two genders, it’s unlikely there will be any federal protections against the practice.
Once again, California and the Bay Area have a chance to lead.
The Bay Area has an important place in the history of intersex activism in the United States. This includes when Bo Laurent founded the Intersex Society of North America in Sonoma County in 1993, receiving letters from people across the country who had experienced medical trauma and wanted to get to the root of the truth about their bodies and their lives.
In 2005, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission conducted an investigation and hearing on intersex issues, concluding that “ ‘normalizing’ interventions done without the patient’s informed consent are inherent human rights abuses.” This report resonated worldwide.
At a state level, the California Legislature passed a resolution in 2018 introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener that recognized the intersex community and the human rights violations they endure. California’s state Legislature became the first in the U.S. officially acknowledged the harm that intersex people suffered at the hands of the medical system. Yet, even a nonbinding resolution — simply recognizing these surgeries as part of the intersex community’s struggle — was an uphill battle for Wiener. Surgeons from across California traveled to Sacramento to testify against the resolution while making egregious claims, like asserting that removing a child’s clitoris helps them become a “functioning member of society.”
So what else can be done to protect these children?
Currently, no hospitals in California have publicly committed to stopping medically unnecessary nonconsensual surgeries on intersex children. It doesn’t have to be this way. Children’s hospitals in Chicago and Boston have pledged to stop the surgeries. The New York City public hospital system banned performing unnecessary or “medically premature” operations before the patient can decide — offering a model for how California hospitals, and especially those in the Bay Area, could support intersex justice.
The good news is that California has taken some positive steps. In 2017, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that introduced a third option on birth certificates. It mandated that any Californian could change their legal gender without undergoing medical procedures or verification.
But if our hospitals are still carrying out these procedures on infants and children who are unable to have their say in what is done to their bodies, having a third option on a state document after a doctor has already altered body parts, doesn’t really solve the core problem.
Globally, the momentum to end these nonconsensual surgeries is surging. Over 50 evaluations by United Nations human rights treaty bodies in different countries have concluded that nonconsensual surgeries to alter the sex characteristics of people born with intersex traits are human rights violations. Parts of Australia and India, and some countries, including Malta, Greece and Spain have passed bans on nonconsensual surgeries, while the U.N. Human Rights Council passed its first resolution on the issue last year. A growing list of medical associations and experts have spoken in favor of ending nonconsensual surgeries.
The U.S. intersex rights movement has made enormous progress, from a grassroots start in the Bay Area to influencing federal policy. California has protected marginalized youth in many ways. But until the hospitals end these harmful practices on intersex children, the fight is far from over.
Within hours of returning to power Monday, United States President Donald Trump issued a stunningly broad executive order that seeks to dismantle crucial protections for transgender people and denies the validity of gender identity itself.
The order states that the US government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, that are fixed at birth, and orders government agencies to end all reference to and consideration of a person’s gender identity. This sweeping redefinition threatens federal programs used by transgender people and impacts federal documentation such as passports, which can currently reflect the gender identity of transgender and nonbinary people.
The order also pledges to withhold federal funding from any programs that promote “gender ideology,” echoing language used by right-wing movements across Europe and Latin America to oppose not only recognition of transgender people but broader sexual and reproductive rights.
Worryingly, it instructs agencies to house transgender people in detention according to their sex assigned at birth, putting them at extreme risk of physical and sexual violence, and to withhold gender-affirming care in prisons, which can amount to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment under international law. The order further instructs the Department of Justice to help agencies reinforce sex-segregated spaces that exclude transgender people, potentially excluding transgender individuals from everyday facilities like bathrooms but also from crucial services like shelters for those facing homelessness and intimate partner violence.
Some of the order’s provisions will face legal challenges, as they seem to squarely conflict with federal law and judicial precedent. However, the order’s scope underscores the administration’s intention to erase transgender people from public life and strip them of basic protections.
In 2023, the United Nations Human Rights Committee urged the US to address persistently high rates of discrimination and violence against transgender people. Instead, these actions are poised to exacerbate this mistreatment.
In this increasingly hostile environment, lawmakers across the political spectrum should reaffirm that transgender people have the right to live free from discrimination and work to enshrine that basic principle into lasting and meaningful protections.
Ecuador’s Constitutional Court recently made public a ruling upholding the rights of a transgender girl whose private school in Santa Elena failed to support her during her gender transition. The court ordered comprehensive remedies after finding that the school discriminated against the girl, failed to act in accordance with her best interests, and violated a wide range of other rights, including her right to education.
In its ruling, the court refers to the girl as C.L.A.G in order to protect her identity. In 2017, C.L.A.G.’s parents sought the school’s support, requesting psychosocial assistance and gender diversity training for the school’s staff. While initially cooperative, the school later failed to consistently use her preferred name, refused her access to the girls’ bathroom, required her to wear the boys’ uniform, and asked her parents to produce a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or “transsexuality.”
The girl’s parents turned to the District of Education, which issued recommendations to the school to better accommodate her gender identity. The school rejected them, and C.L.A.G’s parents turned to the courts. After receiving unfavorable decisions from lower courts, the parents filed an appeal before the Constitutional Court.
Among its remedies, the court ordered the Ministry of Education and other key authorities to develop and disseminate a mandatory protocol for respecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans children in schools within six months. The protocol must include guidelines on the use of a child’s preferred name, dress, and bathroom use consistent with their gender.
This ruling comes as Ecuador struggles to fully implement remedies ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Paola Guzmán Albarracín v. Ecuador to prevent school-related sexual and gender-based violence. The Ministry of Education’s strategy on comprehensive sexuality education – a cornerstone of its prevention efforts – aims to equip students with essential information on topics such as puberty, healthy relationships, and gender identity. It has faced resistance from some teachers and officials, as well as groups that rail against so-called gender ideology.
In 2024, the Ministry of Education caved in to external pressure and temporarily removed materials from its “Sexualipedia” platform, which included age-appropriate content on gender identity. Some content has been restored, but episodes on gender identity remain offline, awaiting “scientific validation.”
C.L.A.G.’s case underscores the need for clear policies to ensure all students, including trans children, can access their right to education without discrimination. Ecuador should develop and implement the protocols ordered by the court, ensuring students receive accurate, inclusive information on gender identity. This will have an important impact on the safety and dignity of countless students and Ecuadoran society.
Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (Juridicción Especial para la Paz, JEP) has charged six former leaders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia,FARC) guerrillas with war crimes for the forced recruitment and use of 18,677 children from 1971 to 2016. In addition to forced recruitment, the charges encompass torture, killings, reproductive and sexual violence, and targeted violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) children.
The JEP, a transitional justice mechanism created by the 2016 Peace Accordsbetween the Colombian government and the FARC, is tasked with trying crimes, including crimes under international law and grave human rights violations, committed during Colombia’s armed conflict.
“Macro-case” 07 before the JEP is focused on child recruitment and involves 9,854 victims, including 8,903 who belong to five indigenous communities and 951 others, including survivors and families who continue the search for missing recruited children.
The JEP’s Chamber of Recognition of Truth charged the former FARC leaders with heinous crimes, including the mistreatment, torture, and homicide of recruited children; reproductive violence affecting recruited girls; and sexual violence against recruited boys and girls, including torture, rape, and sexual slavery.
In a historic first under a transitional justice mechanism, the chamber also charged the former leaders with violence against recruited boys and girls based on prejudice related to the children’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. The chamber found that several LGBT girls and boys “suffered sexual violence and abuse as a way of ‘correcting’ or ‘punishing’ them.” This unprecedented recognition of violence targeted against LGBT children sets a new standard for addressing discrimination as an element of human rights abuses in conflict.
These indictments go a long way in addressing the impunity that has long characterized Colombia’s armed conflict. The JEP should now make sure that defendants are fairly prosecuted and, if found guilty, appropriately punished for their crimes.
Few older Africans participate openly in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights movement. But Francisca Ferraz, 53, known as “Yaa Sissi,” aims to change that.
Yaa Sissi, who lives in Geneva, Switzerland, is a pioneering voice in her community. Born in Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, to a Portuguese father and a Congolese mother, Yaa Sissi moved to Geneva in 2008, where she raised her two daughters, now 25 and 21.
There, early in 2023, she founded Afro LGBT, Geneva’s first LGBT rights association focused on those of African descent.
Today, Afro LGBT creates a safe space for people, many of whom experience fear and discrimination based on their race and their sexuality. Even though she’s seen people like herself come out and live openly in Europe, she notes that many older people, especially those of African descent, still struggle to embrace their identities fully. “People my age hide a lot, and yet there are so many of them,” she says. “But among ourselves we know very well, who is who.”
She speaks of the importance of coming out, of freeing oneself from the heavy burden of secrecy: “I had the courage to do it because I’d been through so much. It wasn’t easy to accept myself.”
Yaa Sissi told her story to Human Rights Watch for the International Day of Older Persons, October 1, sharing her journey through love, identity, and community that has spanned decades, continents, and challenges.
Discovering Love, Confronting Silence
Yaa Sissi discovered her sexuality as a teenager while living in Brazzaville. At age 17, she fell deeply in love with G., a girl four years her junior. Their relationship was intense but short-lived. After high school graduation, Yaa Sissi moved to the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo for professional training, and they lost touch.
Fourteen years ago – more than 20 years after she was together with G. – a rumor that G. had died led Yaa Sissi to track her down. They rekindled their bond, though they still live in separate countries.
I met Yaa Sissi in her apartment, alongside G, who was visiting.
“There Are So Many People My Age Hiding”
Yaa Sissi speaks fondly of “Carine,” a cultural term from Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo that was used to describe intimate friendships between girls and women. “Our great-grandmothers had ‘Carines,’” she says. “G. was my ‘Carine.’” These relationships, forged in school and village life, were sources of deep companionship and affection. “With your ‘Carine,’ you could exchange gifts, kiss, and make little love gestures,” she says.
Over the years, Yaa Sissi’s relationships have included many women older than her??, including married women. “In my country, many of my lovers were married women,” she recalls. Some held high positions where they worked. She met them through her late husband, who was a prominent government official in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Creating Afro LGBT – “To Put an End to Fear and Isolation”
Though initially involved in other local LGBT organizations, Yaa Sissi felt unseen and unheard as an Afro-descendant. “We Afros were always a bit in our corner. Nobody came up to us to find out what brought us there, how we felt,” she says. “We wanted to be listened to. We’re all in very different situations, even though we’re all LGBT.”
Yaa Sissi became a trusted figure in her community, with many LGBT youth turning to her for support. “It hurt so much to see such injustice,” she says, recalling a child who came to her after being kicked out of their home for identifying as transgender. “Young Afro LGBT people need to be listened to and protected.”
“I’ve Stopped Crying”
Yaa Sissi’s journey has not been easy. In a country like Switzerland, opportunities to make one’s voice heard are more available, but the journey of self-acceptance can be lifelong. “I knew I’d been attracted to women for a very long time, but I fought it with all my might,” she says. The social norms of the Congo, coupled with the teachings of the church, kept her struggling against her own desires. “I sought deliverance in the churches. They prayed over me. I sincerely thought it was a demon.”
Her marriage was also a struggle; she tried to preserve it despite knowing her truth. Her late husband, who held her in high regard in the beginning of their marriage, when she started openly struggling with her sexuality. He went with her to churches and traditional healers to cast homosexuality out of her. But when that didn’t “work,” he became abusive, eventually abandoning her and their two children in Geneva. “It took me over 30 years to come out with myself,” she says tearfully. “Before I said stop, I don’t want to suffer anymore. I used to be Francisca. Reserved, shy in my corner. Today I’m international. The one talking to you now is Sissi. I’ve stopped crying.”
Facing Discrimination as an Older Afro Lesbian
The intersection of age, race, and sexuality poses unique challenges for Yaa Sissi. “When you’re an Afro lesbian, it’s hard enough. I got married because I didn’t want that life,” she explains, adding that she has known many women who felt compelled to marry men and have children to avoid the stigma of being openly lesbian. “I’ve seen people beaten up, insulted, raped, and sometimes forcibly married.”
Despite living openly in Switzerland, Sissi sometimes faces ageist insults. “People call me an ‘old lesbian.’ They say I want to warp their children away.” Yet, she has also experienced support from unexpected places. One day, a man tried to attack her in a bar because he learned she was a lesbian. Also, she was sitting at a table with a woman who said no to his advances several times. But customers stood up for her and demanded he calm down.
“Despite everything my late husband said about me, there’s respect in my family, too. I’m a generous, unifying person.”
A Message for International Day of Older Persons
On this day, Yaa Sissi wants to highlight the experiences of older African LGBT people. “We mustn’t forget Afro LGBT seniors. They’re out there. They also have a lot of problems,” she says. Many seek support but struggle with the idea of mixing with younger generations. “When we talk about Afro LGBT, we mustn’t just look at the people on social media. You also have to think about older people who are often very isolated and live in hiding.”
As I left Yaa Sissi’s apartment, the heart-shaped furniture in her living room caught my eye. “Love is the color of power,” she says with a smile.
South Korea’s commitment to equal rights has suffered a dangerous setback with the appointment of Ahn Chang-ho as chairperson of the government’s National Human Rights Commission of Korea.
A former Constitutional Court justice, Ahn has drawn widespread criticism for his opposition to antidiscrimination protections, particularly for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.
Ahn has taken several deeply troubling positions over the years, including opposing comprehensive sexuality education in public schools, claiming antidiscrimination protections spread HIV/AIDS and anal cancer, and suggesting that homosexuality could lead to a communist revolution.
At his confirmation hearing, Ahn reiterated many of these views, casting minority rights as a threat to the viewpoints of the majority.
President Yoon Suk-yeol appointed Ahn despite strong opposition from civil society groups and his concerning confirmation hearing, bypassing the National Assembly’s approval process. Ahn’s confirmation is part of a worrying trend under Yoon’s administration, which has now appointed 29 officials without the National Assembly’s approval.
This appointment is particularly disappointing given South Korea’s already weak record on minority rights. South Korea and Japan are the only two countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) without a comprehensive nondiscrimination law. In 2023, the United Nations Human Rights Committee urged South Korea to pass such a law and expressed concern about ongoing discrimination against various minority groups.
As Human Rights Watch and civil society partners have documented, antidiscrimination protections are urgently needed in South Korea to address unfair treatment based on race, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other characteristics.
For over two decades, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea has been a crucial defender of minority rights, investigating discrimination, developing research, and advocating for an antidiscrimination law. Yet despite widespread public support for antidiscrimination legislation, the National Assembly has repeatedly failed to enact such a law.
As Ahn assumes his new role, it is critical that the commission resist any erosion of its mission and uphold South Korea’s human rights obligations. Any retreat from its commitment to nondiscrimination would be a devastating setback for the country’s progress on equality.
