Nepal took a pioneering step in global gender politics long before many Western nations even debated non-binary recognition. In 2007, our Supreme Court acknowledged third gender as a separate legal identity — neither male nor female. Since then, albeit slowly, Nepal has been working to create separate spaces, rights, reservations, and opportunities for third-gender citizens.

But here is the problem no one wants to talk about — especially now, after Nepal’s Supreme Court echoed a popular Western narrative that “gender is in the brain” and that male-born individuals can be recognized as women without undergoing sex-change surgery: biologically the same group of people can, in practice, hold different and conflicting gender IDs in Nepal. Male-born individuals could have documents showing “women” for some, “third gender” for others, and “men” for the rest. The same applies to female-born individuals.

This is more than a bureaucratic tangle. It is a direct collision between the law that recognizes a separate third gender and a court decision that validates self-declared “brain gender.” And it raises urgent questions about fairness in quotas, sports, jobs, and public facilities.

Into this already complex landscape comes another layer: the global slogan war over “transwomen are women.” My Western friends and activist colleagues have often given me long lectures about why Nepal must recognize transwomen as women without conditions — just as they argued in their own countries.

But now Donald Trump has declared that “transwomen are men,” and the UK Supreme Court has ruled that “sex” in certain protections means only biological sex. Suddenly, the “settled” truth I was told to follow is not so settled. I see very little outrage, no passionate rebuttals, and no nuanced debate from those same Western allies who once insisted that our only progressive option was to mirror their position.

So I must ask: will you, my friends in the West, give Nepal a guarantee that if we follow your path, we will not be forced into an embarrassing U-turn, like the UK — and potentially lose the legally recognized third gender option in order to mirror your position that transwomen are women? Will you stand with us when the tide shifts, or will we be left alone to explain to our people why the definition has changed again?

Our policymakers cannot afford to import slogans without first answering the hard questions:
Toilets & Spaces: How will we manage shared facilities for cisgender women and transwomen who have not undergone surgery, especially as more gender neutral or separate toilets are being created for third genders?

Reserved Jobs for Women: Should women’s quotas — created to address centuries of sexism — be open to anyone who self-identifies as woman, or should there be separate quotas for transwomen and third genders?

Military & Police Recruitment: Should physical standards be based on biological sex or gender identity? If Nepal recruits separately for third genders, will that be acceptable to the West?

Sports: How do we ensure fairness when male puberty brings lasting physical advantages? If Nepal holds separate competitions for the third gender, will you support that? Will the west dominated olympics ever consider organizing a separate competition for nonbianroes?

Marital Rights: What happens to a heterosexual marriage when one partner transitions, in a country that only barely recognizes same-sex marriage through an interim court order?

Multiple Gender IDs: How do we prevent someone from benefiting simultaneously from women’s quotas, third-gender reservations, and male opportunities?

Nepal’s reality is already more diverse than the binary battles of the West. We are not debating whether to recognize more than two genders — we already have. Our challenge is to govern fairly, consistently, and without creating loopholes that undermine the very protections we aim to build.

So, to my Western friends: if you had the courage to tell me “transwomen are women,” have the same courage now to discuss the implications of “transwomen are men,” as declared by a former US President. Solidarity cannot exist only when we agree with your slogans.

Nepal deserves not just lectures and slogans that create conflicts, but honest partnership — one that respects our legal landscape, our cultural context, and the messy, practical realities of turning identity into policy. More importantly, we need practical solutions that allow all citizens, regardless of gender, to live in harmony, with fairness, dignity, and mutual respect.