Social interactions where a person is addressed by their correct name and pronouns, consistent with their gender identity, are widely recognized as a basic and yet critical aspect of gender affirmation. A national university invited speakers for a discussion on rights of sexual minorities in India. The panel included speakers representing a wide variety of opinions and perspectives on the issue. The debates, though largely peaceful, witnessed a controversy. A college association representing sexual minorities took offence against a panellist who cautioned against self-identification by sexual minorities and the liberal use of pronouns. The association reached out to the media and the localised controversy soon turned into a national issue across news networks and social media. The association demanded that the panellist apologise for his views and issue a public statement in this context. The panellist, on the other hand, seemed unmoved by the issue. In the meantime, the University has come under huge pressure to resolve the issue. The Vice Chancellor set up a Committee to look into the matter and its peaceful resolution. You have been appointed as the Chairperson of the Committee. In this regard, answer the following questions: (a) Discuss the various moral issues involved in the case. (b) Keeping the right to freedom of speech and expression in mind, highlight the steps you would take to resolve the issue and list arguments in support.

(a) Moral issues in the Case

⊙ Right of free speech and expression under Art.19 of constitution which can be reasonably restricted only under conditins of Art 19(2).

⊙ Gender identity as part of Right of expression [SC in Sec 377 judgement - Navtej Johar case]

⊙ Self affirming pronouns are a part of right to dignified life (Art 21) of gender minorities.

⊙ Right to protest (Art 19) of the association against the panelist.

⊙ Presence of cancel culture with woke mentality → May not solve issues of discrimination

⊙ Focus on issues such as pronouns as compared to larger issues of political, Social etc rights of minorities. e.g.: No right to inheritance for transgenders under law.

● Use of media to pressure university which causes 'mob mentality' rather than 'due process' of law in courts.

(b) As the head of the committee, my duty is to evaluate the case on objective basis without any bias or favour affirming the values of free speech and self-identification of gender.

The course of action will be as:

● I will summon the association as well as the penalist in a peaceful, secure atmosphere individually or collectively to hear their case.

● As freedom of expression is a fundamental right, I cannot restrict it (only courts can).

● I will ask the association to pursue

the cases of gender affirmation in courts later, while ensuring the penalists' right to speak is not hampered.

⊙ If the penalist agrees, I will issue a statement that people should follow a code of ethics in college as:

↳ Use of gender affirming pronouns. ↳ self-identification of gender as the basis of future conversations (NALSA judgement).

⊙ Using emotional intelligence, I will present the both with arguments as:

↳ Focus should be on debate and discusion rather than shutting down. ↳ change in heart of penalist will only happen with compassion not rigid attitude. ↳ on the other hand, rights of minorities need to be ensured.

This will ensure a college of 3Ds - Debate, discussin, deliberation as well as 'education with character' (Gandhiji).