?bersicht In der Vergangenheit war die trans*-spezifische Gesundheitsversorgung gepr?gt von der Psychopathologisierung von Trans*-Identit?ten, dem Ausschluss der Betroffenenperspektive bei der Erstellung von Behandlungsrichtlinien sowie H?rden im Zugang zu geschlechtsangleichenden Ma?nahmen. Heute wird die medizinische Definitionsmacht ?ber Trans*-Menschen von einer sich international formierenden Trans*-Bewegung ins Wanken gebracht. Diese kritisiert den starren diagnostischen Prozess, inklusive seiner Zwangsma?nahmen, als nicht-menschenrechtskonform und am Bedarf vorbei gehend. Die Autor_innen fordern einen Perspektivenwechsel hin zu einer menschenrechts- und bed?rfnisorientierten Trans*-Gesundheitsversorgung, die eine Vielfalt von Trans*-Identit?ten unterst?tzt. Sie zeigen die Schw?chen der in Deutschland geltenden ?Standards? zur Behandlung von Trans* auf und weisen auf praktische Probleme und Diskriminierungen von Trans*-Menschen mit Transitionswunsch im bestehenden medizinischen System hin. Die Autor_innen unterbreiten Vorschl?ge f?r eine verbesserte, flexibilisierte Leitlinie, die zu einer f?r alle Trans* zug?nglichen, bed?rfnisgerechten Gesundheitsversorgung f?hrt.

Responding to violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people worldwide, in the light of the universality of human rights, this paper demonstrates the need, benefits and opportunities for including sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in human rights impact assessment (HRIA) and related impact assessments. The United Nations legal framework (including the 2011 Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) and supporting international legal documents such as the Yogyakarta Principles provide the mandate and basis for this paper. The paper develops a typology of documents related to SOGI aspects in HRIA and provides examples of SOGI-centred HRIA approaches, specifically the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill and post-earthquake disaster relief in Haiti. Our findings identify research-practice gaps in modes and technicalities of the pioneer SOGI-centred HRIA cases, and attest to an absence of methodologies, tools and indicators. We call upon impact assessment practitioners to develop and use tools that are inclusive of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as well as transgender and intersex people.

No abstract

No abstract

Gender impact assessment has been both celebrated as a beacon of hope for the cause of gender equality and criticised as being ineffectual. More than 20 years of gender mainstreaming have demonstrated that equality governance with and through impact assessment is an intersectional and still evolving process. Arn T. Sauer's study examines the instruments of gendered policy analysis and the conditions under which they are being used by the Canadian federal government and the European Commission. Interviews with experts from public administration and instrument designers as well as document analyses reveal benefits and challenges and show that the success of equality governance depends upon whether knowledge about gendered policy and appropriate administrative practices are embedded, embodied and entrenched in public administration.