MYTH vs. FACT: Homosexuality & Gender Assignment in Iran
/By Research Associate Allyson Socha
MYTH: Beliefs ingrained in Iranian culture manifest in an ultraconservative and aggressive government approach to homosexuality and non-binary gender identity. Government policies persecute both homosexuals and transgender individuals alike for their sexuality and gender identification, criminalizing same-sex relations and gender reassignment procedures.
FACT: Iran has maintained and pursued policies which condemn and harshly punish homosexuality, a practice widely, and appropriately, criticized as a human rights violation. However, this government persecution does not apply equally to transgender individuals; gender reassignment surgery is legal in Iran, and formal gender recognition is supported by the Iranian theocracy.
Iranian Treatment of Homosexuals
Despite criticism from other nations and human rights organizations, the Islamic Republic of Iran has maintained its practice of condemning same-sex relations as illegal and morally corrupt. As a result, homosexual individuals in Iran face legal challenges and consequences distinct from heterosexual and cisgender people. The Iranian Penal Code prohibits all sexual activity outside of the institution of marriage, same-sex relations, and LGBT-related media, with the death penalty being one form of punishment for homosexuality. Temporary marriage contracts are one exception which presents a way to have legal relations, but homosexuals are not afforded this option.
Iran’s treatment of homosexual citizens has long been a contentious issue in the international community. In 2019, the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif defended the nation’s position after the United States and Germany accused Iran of violating fundamental human rights. Zarif argued that the moral principles that guide Iranian governance condemn homosexual behavior just as they condemn other personal actions and life choices; therefore punishment for such choices, including punishment by execution, is lawful and substantiated. However, others have called these policies “draconian” and expressed outrage over the country’s belief system being used to defend such policies.
Michael Roth, Germany’s Minister of State in the Federal Foreign Office at the time, claimed, “No religious, cultural or ethnic tradition justifies state persecution, let alone the execution of homosexuals. In Iran and seven other countries around the world, homosexuals face the death penalty. That is inhumane and completely unacceptable.” His sentiment was shared by other international diplomats and independent sources as well. Richard Grenell, U.S. Ambassador to Germany at the time of Zarif’s remarks, joined Roth in his opposition to the treatment and argued that the executions go against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly details criminalization of homosexuality as a violation. Grenell’s sentiments were a continuation of the Trump administration’s campaign which launched in February of 2019 to decrimnalize homosexuality in various nations including Iran and called on global organizations like the UN and EU contribute to the effort.
LGBT+ rights have been in opposition to the Iranian Penal Code since the 1930s when Parliament passed legislation criminalizing such relationships, and disapproval of this discrimation has intensified over time. Psychological professionals in Iran counsel homosexual individuals to treat their “sexual deviancy,” and even former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously denied the existence of sexual minorities in Iran in 2007. All of this culminates to make Iran one of the most discriminatory countries toward homosexuals in the world, with Iran having executed an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 homosexual individuals since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Moreover, enforcement of this law is ongoing, and occurs periodically with very publicized examples, as in January 2019, when a 31-year-old man was publicly hanged after being convicted guilty of homosexual relations. Since consensual homosexual relationships are punishable by public executions, these measures also serve a secondary purpose for the Iranian government, which is to intimidate citizens into not coming out.
Gender Assignment in Iran
Given the severe and draconian government policies towards homosexuality in Iran, it is perhaps suprising that gender reassignment and the existence of of transgender individuals in Iran is legally supported. Though personal and societal judgement against transgender people in Iran is - as in many countries - persistant and pervasive, the broader idea of being transgender is not considered a violation of Iranian theocratic principles, and the government does not view such individuals as they do homosexuals.
In fact, sex-reassignment surgery is not only legal in Iran, but Tehran is considered to be an international hub for obtaining it. The procedure has been allowed since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini learned of the hardships of a trans woman and issued a religious decree to legalize it in the mid-1980s. Since then legal gender recognition has been possible, and those individuals who undergo gender confirmation surgery are accepted in the eyes of the law.
Life for transgender people, however, is not easy in Iran. The traditional values which have long resulted in persecution of non-heterosexual and cisgender individuals often lead transgender Iranians to endure harassment and social discrimination from other private citizens. The treatment of transgender citizens in Iran then is a complex issue with contradicting legal support and societal judgement.
The Role of Gendered Language
While Ayatollah Khomeini’s religious decree legalizing sex-reassignment surgery apparently originated from a personal encounter, there may also be an underlying linguistic and cultural significance to the Iranian acceptance of transgendered people which is not commonly discussed. From a western perspective, people often think about transgender rights in regards to appropriate use of gendered pronouns. Indeed, in the west, proper use of this linguistic feature in both written and spoken language is directly correlated with acceptance and recognition of transgender and nonbinary people; appropriate language use is considered, at least in some ways, synonymous with equal rights, especially for minority demographics. This has been an increasingly relevant topic in western media and political discourse over the last few years, with outlets seeking to draw awareness to the importance of appropriate gender identification terms. One must consider, then, how the issue changes and has the potential to be deescalated if this feature of the language is no longer a possible reflection of social and governmental acceptance.
In English, grammatical gender exists in singular pronouns such as she, her, he, and his. However, the plural pronoun they is considered to be gender neutral. This single lexical item does not encode the natural gender of the subject to which it refers. That is to say, they can refer to a group of females, males, or both, but without context of the discourse it is used in, the listener or reader cannot implicitly know the subject’s gender. The lack of gender neutral singular pronouns in English has led to many discussions of how best to allow individuals to identify themselves with their speech. Many transgender individuals simply desire the usage of the appropriate existing gender pronoun, while others advocate the use of singular they or new words altogether such as xe/xem or zi/zim to express gender identity. However, this is only a relevant debate in a language like English, in which singular gender neutral pronouns do not already exist. In Persian, grammatical inclusivity is already built into the language structure.
Persian is the official language spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, and the Asian republic of Tajikistan, and is referred to by speakers in each according to the dialectal variation they use. Therefore, Persian that is spoken in Iran is referred to by the local native speakers as Farsi. The language of Old Persian dates back over 3000 years and originally included three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. This linguistic feature was lost in the shift from Old Persian to Middle Persian and finally to Modern Persian which is now spoken in Iran. Modern Persian does not inflect gender grammatically, but rather uses the same pronoun for all genders and must include other words if the speaker wishes to indicate gender. That is to say, the isolated Persian pronoun cannot inform the natural gender of its subject alone. With this aspect of the language, non-binary individuals - whether they have undergone gender reassignment surgery or choose to identify as a different gender without the procedure - are in some ways saved from having to fight for appropriate identification.
Removing such a potent weapon of discrimination in the language, transgender and other non-binary individuals in Iran experience a unique form of verbal inclusivity. Kaveh Mousavi, a non-binary Iranian, explains that the Persian pronoun U has always been gender neutral and is used for all living beings, so if others are able to overcome cultural differences, the language itself essentially aids acceptance. This lack of grammatical gender means that Mousavi, like many others whom identify as non-binary, was never traumatized by the emotionally charged he nor endured weaponization of the label. Looking towards the future, Mousavi says, “I tend to think that when the concept of non-binary finds its way into the collective Iranian consciousness, other non-binary people will be as grateful to this humble Persian pronoun as I am.” The Persian pronoun has taken on a progressive function in its modern usage, emphasizing humanity over gender identification discrimination, and subsequently affords one aspect of inclusivity in an environment which can otherwise be hostile to sexual minorities.
Transgender Experiences in Iran
As discussed above, transgender identification has been formally accepted in Iran since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called for respect and the support of gender-confirmation surgery, but conflicting national ideology still presents obstacles for non-binary citizens. Most religious leaders only accept those non-binary individuals who fully complete the transition operation, while those who do not are perceived as “sick” and can still be arrested for cross-dressing and other stereotypically homosexual practices. Ruling clerics emphasize the necessity of gender-reassignment surgery to such an extent that trans people can recieve grants worth almost $1,200 towards the total $7,000-$12,000 procedure cost. Even still, individuals who seek this procedure confront a long process to obtain legal approval and support, both economically and socially. Essentially, fully transitioned transgender citizens are perceived as cured of their ailment, but there is little tolerance for other diversity in gender identification.
Despite formal support of transgender people by the government, individuals are still faced with discrimination and persecution by private citizens and individuals in their personal lives, an experience similar to that of homosexuals in Iran. Families often reject the concept of being trans altogether, leading these citizens with a difficult choice between their familial and social relationships or the expression and acknowledgement of their true identity. Even fully transitioned individuals are not guaranteed acceptance and frequently move to new cities to restart their lives with their new, recognized identity. It is clear that the support initiated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini decades ago and the advantage of the inclusivity of the Persian language provide foundational institutional acceptance of trans citizens in Iran, but there are still steps that must be taken to promote social approval and cultural incorporation of the non-binary population.
The Intersection of Authorized Gender Surgery and Iran’s Homosexual Treatment
With the approach to both homosexuality and transgender citizens in Iran established, a correlation between the two comes to light. With an intense focus on the necessity of sex-reassignment surgery, the application of this operation as a solution is often over-extended, and the concept of gender dysphoria is presumed true of homosexual individuals. This implies that the state as a whole prioritizes the procedure in order to maintain the gender dicotomy and reject the non-binary spectrum of gender identification. Both homosexuals and transgender people are viewed as having a mental illness, a diagnosis which advocates application of the gender reassignment operation, even when it does not correlate with the individual’s identification. Homosexuals pushed towards this as a treatment are left with few options due to the legal support of hormone treatments, psychotherapy, and full transitional operations; thus, many are faced with either enduring the promoted medical approach or fleeing the country to seek political asylum in a nation with different policies.
While legal authorization of gender reassignment represents significant progress and support for the transgender population, it can also unfortunately be used against the already persecuted demographic of homosexuals in Iran. The complex and seemingly contradictory treatment of these two minority groups displays the intricate nature in which theological beliefs can be incorporated into political institutions. Going forward, further progress would ideally see treatment of homosexual individuals positively reconciled with national and cultural ideals. Perhaps the legal acceptance of transgender individuals may be used as guidance for this path forward.
