Who Gets to Belong?

Introduction

It’s often said that the first Pride parade was a riot. Movements of civil resistance by the LGBTQIA+ community had already taken place throughout the 1950s and 60s. But indeed, the 1969 Stonewall riots in NYC are considered the beginning of the modern queer rights movement, and the concept of “Pride”. An unheralded police raid on a bar led to a violent pushback from its queer patrons, which gained enough coverage to give birth to the first openly queer political groups who advocated for their own rights and gained visibility for the community in the public sphere.

Stonewall’s impact went beyond borders. The concept of Pride as a “march” or a “parade” stemmed from the very thing that distinguished Stonewall from the earlier queer rights movements in the USA: it gave queer people the chance to make themselves visible rather than choosing to just assimilate into heteronormative society. Soon, the first Pride marches outside the USA were held — in the UK and Canada, both in 1972. Other countries in Europe rapidly followed, notably France and Germany, both later in the 1970s. 

India was slower on the uptake, but even here, the first Pride took place in 1999. This was the Friendship Walk (a name initially meant to sound more innocuous and avoid association with western Pride marches), which took place in Kolkata with only around 15 people from all over India. It set off a butterfly effect: the fact that it occurred at all drew reporters and photographers from national news outlets to cover the walk, as well as the interaction of the group with the state Human Rights Commission. This was the first “ripple”, which took around a decade to truly spread to other parts of the country. Delhi Pride first took place in 2008, while, closest to home, Mumbai had its own first Pride march, the Queer Azaadi Pride, in 2008 as well. 

Queer Pride, and its iconic rainbow flag – created in 1978 – have served as a beacon, both in the sense of hope for a community that has historically been erased, and as a light that brings them, and discussion of their rights, into the foreground. With this objective in mind, Insight spoke to students about the pervasive challenges that they face – not only from the institute as an establishment, but also in everyday life, with the people that make up this community — while they navigate diverse, often nonconforming, identities of gender and sexuality.

Rethinking Gender

Despite the core idea of “Gender is a social construct” having gained credibility in academic circles, the general populace still tends to subscribe to a rigid binary which has been shaped by centuries of segregation in both public and private life. The society we inhabit seems to be divided into two all-encompassing locker rooms, one saying MEN and one saying WOMEN. There isn’t any place outside these two rooms; nor is transgression of the wall accepted or really known of. 

This binary outright shapes a number of aspects of daily life in the form of gender roles. Subconsciously, too,  our interactions are shaped by how we perceive the other party as well as ourselves to fit on the gender binary. Unwritten rules for male-female, female-female, and male-male interactions are upheld for “propriety” — which in reality only serves to enforce differences rather than rectify the rift. 

College life is no exception to being shaped by this division. We have strictly-separated men’s sports and women’s sports, men’s hostels and women’s hostels, which tend to leave out those who identify beyond, or outside, the traditional binary, or even force them to conform to one or the other. Students who identify as non-binary or transgender may often find themselves excluded or suppressed. 

Although the institute is seen both by outsiders and members as relatively progressive, this only serves to reduce the amount of outright discrimination faced by those belonging to sexual and gender minorities. In fact, many of the issues faced by such students (and others) are because of general confusion and misinformation surrounding the LGBTQIA+ community. The lack of awareness has a significant impact on a space such as IITB, which hosts a close-knit, self-contained community of people with an extremely wide range of social backgrounds from all over the country. The perspectives — and often prejudices — which hold in Indian society in general tend to shape views on campus as well. As a result, the average person in insti’s knowledge about LGBTQIA+ may often just start at L and end at G, or, less commonly, B. (This “knowledge” too might frequently be warped by pre-existing misconceptions.) Even without outright bigotry, this tends to create an environment which is hostile for queer students. As will be explored further later in this article, they face difficulties in academic interactions, pastoral support as well as medical services that should ideally be hassle-free for them. Because, like all students, they spend up to four years (and often more) at campus, these difficulties might accumulate into significant systemic barriers in terms of personal and professional growth.

One of the most common misconceptions that proliferates on campus as well as among the general public is that sexual orientation and gender identity are the same. This is further pushed by the common stereotyping of gay men as overly feminine and lesbian women as overly masculine. These two things are actually different axes which have no bearing on each other. Relating them can increase the misunderstanding of queer people by their peers, and cause them to be seen through (wrongly) predefined lenses. Gender identity in general is also a concept that is glossed over. This may be in part due to some traditional understandings prevalent in Indian society which teach us to reject any possibility of gender presentation and roles as a self-determined feature — that is, not constrained by the rigid binary already mentioned before. The marginalisation of the third-gender community as well as the conflation of the ideas of a “third gender”¹ and “transgender” contribute to the lack of understanding. 

A failure to address wrongly held ideas like the ones above may place an additional social burden on top of the academic and professional ones that queer students already face. Those who do not conform to the gender binary — whether they are trans, nonbinary, or even male or female students who do not measure up to the “standards” for masculinity or femininity — become highly visible in a negative light because they do not “fit”. At IITB, like all colleges, perception by peers shapes the majority of a student’s life outside work and study, and this may lead to social isolation and ostracisation, with queer students facing unjustified ridicule and harassment based on unfounded assumptions about their nature and identities. 

Between Policy and Practice

The rigidness of the gender binary does not stop at social spaces alone, it extends into institutional systems too. Conversations surrounding the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019² reflected this strongly within the campus. While the Act was introduced with the aim of protecting transgender persons from discrimination and providing legal recognition, several provisions of the bill have faced criticism from the trans community. Several students from the queer community expressed discomfort with the way identity continues to require approval through systems and documentation.  Accessing healthcare continues to remain a challenge for many transgender individuals due to limited awareness, inadequate support systems and the reliance on a binary understanding of gender within institutions. 

The bill also saw a strong reaction within IIT Bombay, particularly among members of the queer community who felt that many of the concerns it raised were already visible within campus. One student described the bill as “invalidating because it takes away rights” especially for non-binary individuals who already struggle with visibility within rigid understandings of gender. Students also pointed to concerns surrounding legal recognition and healthcare, arguing that while the Act aims to protect transgender persons from discrimination, it does little to address the practical barriers many continue to face while accessing gender-specific and gender-affirming healthcare. They spoke about how accessing gender-specific healthcare can become difficult when institutional healthcare systems continue to function almost entirely around a binary framework. From registration forms and medical records to consultations and referrals, many healthcare processes continue to assume a strictly male-female understanding of gender. As a result, transgender and non-binary individuals may find themselves having to repeatedly explain or justify their identities while seeking medical help. In spaces where awareness around non binary healthcare remains limited, even routine medical interactions can become exhausting.

When interviewed on how such facilities may be translated into real time execution in our campus itself, a student who identifies as a trans themselves shared an experience regarding difficulties while accessing healthcare facilities provided by IITB Hospital, stating,
“I had recently started HRT³ and went to the IITB hospital for a blood test. However, the consulting doctor I approached seemed unfamiliar with transgender healthcare and repeatedly asked about my ‘symptoms’ despite me explaining that I was not ill and only required tests related to my HRT. After repeatedly being asked irrelevant medical questions, I eventually gave up and chose to go to a hospital outside Insti instead.”

It may be fair to note that while there may not be any clearly defined discriminatory policy against transgender people on campus, there is still very little support or awareness around their experiences. As a result, issues related to healthcare, identity and accessibility often remain overlooked until they directly affect someone. “Any efforts that could have been made become null now,” they shared while speaking about how easily such conversations get sidelined within institutional spaces as reputed and progressive as ours. Such a reaction to the bill drew attention to the gaps that continue to exist within the campus ecosystem.

Not Masculine Enough?

The gaps, if not just through policies, also tend to revolve around a common notion of only certain identities or roles associated with the LGBTQIA+ community, which may not be very unusual to observe on campus. A lot of prejudice that comes with supporting the idea of community may actually be observed through a common lens of gender roles which affects not only marginalized individuals, but also the wider community. Our campus is no exception. This can be supported  by the existing ideas surrounding masculinity and femininity, which often extend beyond identity, further shaping the way we are expected to behave and express ourselves. From an early age, certain emotions, behaviours, appearances and forms of self expression are associated with specific genders. Traits such as strength, and emotional restraint are frequently linked with masculinity, while sensitivity and softness are associated with femininity. Similarly, everything from clothing and hairstyles to hobbies, is often viewed through a gendered lens. Over time, these expectations often change into social norms. While these ideas often originate within broader society, they still find their way into academic spaces like ours– influencing participation, confidence, social acceptance, overall sense of belonging, opportunities, leadership roles, peer interactions, and the freedom to express one’s identity.
Such expectations become particularly crucial in conversations surrounding LGBTQIA+ identities, posing a problem for individuals who do not conform to traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity– often being subjected to scrutiny, judgement or ridicule.

Underlying this scrutiny is the broader societal tendency to devalue femininity and associate it with weakness. Consequently, this not only contributes to the marginalisation of women’s experience but also intensifies the ridicule and stigma faced by queer individuals and men who diverge from traditional masculine norms. For instance, a man wearing traditionally feminine clothing, such as a skirt, wearing makeup, painting his nails, or engaging himself in activities that are perceived to be feminine, is often subjected to insults and judgement. Such reactions highlight the rigid social expectations, and also the underlying misogyny. The association of emotional openness, softness or femininity with weakness continues to shape the way people perceive both women and queer individuals.

In a campus which continues to be male dominated, such as ours, individuals who do not conform to traditional masculine expectations may often feel excluded. The dominance can lead to there being little space for diverse forms of identities– making it difficult to feel accepted and comfortable.
“My bonding has always been affected with the way male peers have interacted with me in my Research Lab. Despite being a male, I’m almost very different from them which becomes more evident when a subtle smirk on their faces show up within themselves,” a PG Student shares in conversation with Insight.
Another one recollects their experience at campus:
“I have never come out to anyone here because I expected Campus to be the same way as it is currently. It’s the way I carry myself that segregates me with an invisible boundary. I’m so much more than my sexuality but people seem to forget that.”

This gender-based division comes with an obvious repercussion to not just the community, but also for many female students at times, navigating academic and social spaces can involve dealing with the effects of gender imbalance and exclusion where a female student may often be subjected to additional pressure to continuously validate their competence and merit. Assumptions around opportunities being granted easily on the basis of gender, can undermine hard-work and achievements. Such behaviours not only invalidates accomplishments, but also leads to self-doubt, hesitation in participation and under-confidence. If not just academics, female students are also frequently subjected to objectification and constant judgement surrounding appearance and behaviour, affecting confidence and comfort within social spaces.
 
At the same time, societal expectations surrounding masculinity place their own pressures on male students. It isn’t uncommon to hear phrases such as “Be a man” or “ladki jaise ro mat” in our environment, which further reinforce gender expectations by portraying emotional expression and femininity as inferior and further promoting suppression of emotions in men. Such remarks not only suppress emotional openness in men, but also reflect underlying misogynistic attitudes toward femininity.

Although these experiences may often be dismissed as small, they can gradually impact a person’s sense of safety, belonging and ease within campus, which may perhaps be the reason why important aspects of genders and open-ness to such conversations are still not very widely observed at IITB– which in turn, lead to questions on how such institutes of eminence meant to bestow exemplary environment, may still face challenges in fully upholding the values of inclusivity, dignity and respect.

“I see that being yourself comes with the fact that people invisibly downplay you a lot of times. The culture prevalent in hostels made me question not just IIT but even the outer world if the problem was just someone being queer or was the problem in these people being associated with something feminine?”, a student shares with Insight.

More than Just a Joke

In a campus that often sees itself as progressive and accepting, exclusion rarely appears openly. Instead, it slips into everyday conversations — jokes in hostel corridors, casual slurs used during banter, the awkwardness that follows certain identities being mentioned out loud and the use of words like “gay”, “meetha” or “chakka” as insults. Often passed off as harmless humour, such language quietly reinforces the idea that queer identities are something abnormal.

Several queer students described this exclusion as subtle, but constant. “You can feel exclusion,” one student shared, speaking about the visible distancing in people’s body language, whispers, or comments disguised as jokes. Even comments meant to sound supportive, like “I accept you” can sometimes create an invisible hierarchy, where queer people are treated as something “different” first, and equal later.

Often, this exclusion continues not because people consciously wish to be harmful, but because certain behaviours have become deeply normalized within social and hostel culture, specially associating it with the very nature of the environment in STEM. Many individuals may genuinely believe they are accepting, progressive and have a positive outlook toward the community, yet still participate in casual jokes, stereotypes, or remarks that reduce queer identities to humour. The issue, then, is not open hostility, but the disconnect between considering oneself supportive and still contributing to an environment where derogatory language and subtle discomfort prevail. 

Hostel culture and perceptions of femininity often amplify this discomfort. While women wearing masculine clothing is often accepted, men expressing femininity openly continue to be mocked. “People don’t want to be associated with feminine energy,” one student shared. The fear of appearing feminine shapes much of the humour and behaviour and how fitting in still depends heavily on masculinity, making femininity a topic to be laughed at, in hostels or male spaces. All of this clearly indicates how closely misogyny and homophobia continue to overlap.

A past incident on a similar line where in 2018, IIT Bombay banned ‘hostel valfis’ following complaints regarding sexist and homophobic content, such incidents continue to validate the existence of elements that may not help in making the environment comfortable. While policies can address visible incidents, changing the everyday language people casually normalize remains far more difficult. Perhaps, this is what makes casual language important.

A lot of it grows from the fact that people may not be educated enough on these lines, which in fact, makes it easier for them to be unaware of the vocabulary that they take into use.

Impact of Social Media

In the current age of social media, where communities, including our campus, continually grow to be an inevitable part of media consumption–For many students, conversations around gender and sexuality begin online long before they happen comfortably offline. Sometimes it may start with an anonymous Reddit post at 2 a.m., a meme page comment section, a queer creator on Instagram, or a private group chat where someone finally says something they could never say offline. In spaces where people still grow up surrounded by rigid expectations around gender and sexuality, the internet often becomes the first place where queer individuals find language, visibility, and reassurance.

At the same time, digital spaces within campus culture may not always be as comforting as they appear. Confession pages, meme pages, screenshots from group chats, anonymous comments — all of them often blur the line between humour and humiliation. Sometimes queer identities become “content” before they are treated as identities. A casually forwarded “harmless joke”, a rumour turned into a confession post, or even the way certain screenshots circulate can make people feel watched rather than understood.

What makes this more complicated is that IIT Bombay, like other relatively progressive campuses, may not always be openly hostile. The discomfort is subtler. It appears in the irony of people reposting Pride stories in June while still using “gay” jokingly in conversations. Several queer individuals online have spoken about avoiding public comment sections due to fear of trolling and harassment. One person described online bullying as something that left them “deeply hurt, traumatized, and depressed.”

When Insight reached out to Saathi regarding the same, It was found that the hate that such forums receive is not any different. People from the institute itself, spreading hate comments on initiatives led by Saathi on channels such as Instagram continues to make Saathi a taboo and a lesser safe space to be in. 

“We always try to be inclusive as much as possible, but it comes at the risk of confrontation with such elements. We still try to spread love and ignore the hate that we get,” Saathi OC shares.

This contradiction is not limited to individuals alone. Social media has increasingly shaped the way Pride itself is understood and represented online. Queerness often becomes associated with rainbow aesthetics, colourful branding and symbolic gestures, while deeper conversations around identity, inclusion and lived experiences remain far less visible. During June especially, support becomes impossible to miss — rainbow logos appear everywhere, Pride turns into branding, and queerness becomes something marketable. Yet, as the responses to initiatives such as those led by Saathi show, visibility does not always translate into acceptance. The result is a version of Pride that is easy to celebrate publicly, but difficult to engage with meaningfully.
In many such ways, online spaces reveal how visibility and understanding are not always the same thing. For queer students, the internet can feel like both a refuge and a risk — a place to find community and comfort, while also constantly learning how visible they can afford to be.

Included, yet Excluded

While the campus may be a relatively open and accepting space, experiences of inclusion and exclusion continue to coexist. Many students find support and a sense of belonging, yet instances of judgement and insensitivity persist. As a result, the reality of inclusivity on campus remains an open question.
Initiatives like Saathi, contribute towards creating supportive communities and safer spaces for conversations surrounding gender and identity. However, an underlying stigma surrounding participation in such events is often observed among students. Many individuals may hesitate to attend due to the fear of being judged, labelled or recognized by peers– reflecting the still persistent discomfort and lack of openness regarding conversations on gender and sexuality. This discomfort often prevents students from engaging in events that are meant to promote inclusivity and support.

“Even if I know that Saathi is a safe space, there are things that I would not do. Not just attending their events can make me spotted, but the fear of even somebody observing that I follow them on Instagram or a part of their WhatsApp Community makes it harder. It is because of the inherent stigma that the majority of people act differently that way,” says one student anonymously, when asked how they see Saathi as a resource group for the community.

It is important to note that the conversations that we tend to become a part of, may not only be limited to the student community, but it also extends to how other stakeholders participate in making campus a safer space.
In conversation with a student regarding faculty interactions, the student expressed “feeling undermined and not taken seriously”.
Another student reported a similar experience where the student, facing homophobic remarks made by peers, approached a PhD supervisor regarding the same. The student’s identity was reportedly disclosed to others by the professor, without consent. Experiences such as these reflect that the lack of awareness and sensitivity surrounding LGBTQIA+ issues is not limited to students alone, but can also extend into faculty and official spaces. These experiences also reveal that despite ongoing conversations around inclusivity, awareness and sensitivity surrounding various identities, there still remains a lack of these within several important parts of the IITB ecosystem.

In further conversation regarding their campus experiences, a student shared: “Even the SWC council is not inclusive to queer people. I got assigned to a person, but he wasn’t comfortable with queer people, SWC people don’t know how to handle queer people.” Support systems are structures designed to be accessible and welcoming to all members of the campus. However, a lack of understanding surrounding queer identities can sometimes create barriers that prevent individuals from feeling fully supported even through avenues which are essentially established to provide the same.

In contrast with most of the experiences forming a general perception, A student also highlighted positive experiences with their faculty advisor. “My fac-ad has always supported me” said the student, mentioning the consistent support coming from their Fac-ad. The student further shared that they had also come out to their supervisor, proving that safe spaces aren’t extinct. However, they may be extremely rare to be found in an otherwise big campus.
These incidents continue to highlight the progress as well as the gaps that still exist within the larger ecosystem. While support from individuals and communities has helped encourage acceptance, representation and comfort for many students, there still remains a need for greater awareness and inclusivity.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the question of inclusivity is not simply about policies, representation or legal recognition—it is about whether institutions are willing to create spaces where every individual can exist with dignity, safety and a sense of belonging. The persistence of a rigid male/female binary, along with the assumptions and stereotypes attached to it, continues to limit inclusion– both within society and institutional spaces. While progress has been made through greater awareness, representation and conversations around gender diversity, these efforts remain incomplete when they are not accompanied by meaningful structural support and accountability.
The experiences highlighted throughout this article demonstrate that exclusion is not always through loud discrimination, but often embedded in casual remarks, insensitive jokes, and systems that fail to acknowledge diverse identities and realities. They also reveal that acceptance cannot be measured solely through symbolic gestures or public displays of support. The increasing visibility of Pride has undoubtedly contributed to greater awareness and representation. However, visibility alone is not enough. It only becomes meaningful  when accompanied by genuine engagement and structural support. Also it is necessary to expect that the inclusivity must begin with smaller things– the jokes that people repeat, the words they choose casually, and the assumptions they continue to carry without noticing.

Creating a genuinely inclusive campus therefore requires a collective commitment to learning, unlearning, and listening. It requires challenging casual prejudices, questioning long-held assumptions, and fostering empathy within classrooms, hostels, and social spaces alike. Sensitization programs, awareness initiatives, and stronger support systems can play an important role in this process, but lasting change ultimately depends on the everyday choices made by individuals and institutions.

Only by moving beyond mere recognition and towards meaningful understanding, accountability, and action can institutions create environments where all individuals are not only accepted, but empowered to thrive.

1. In India, the widespread third-gender community often are referred to as “transgender”. However, “third gender” is closer to the idea of a nonbinary identity. Even these two things are not the same because of a cultural and historical context that the third gender (in India) is rooted in, while “nonbinary” is a more modern umbrella term that simply refers to all identities which do not fall into the male/female binary.
   ↩︎
2. Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: The Act was enacted with the aim of protecting transgender persons from discrimination and ensuring their access to education, employment, healthcare, public services, and welfare measures. The Act also introduced a framework for the legal recognition of transgender identities through the issuance of identity certificates. However, several provisions of the Act have faced criticism from members of the transgender community, particularly regarding procedures related to legal recognition and concerns that the Act does not fully uphold the principle of self-identification recognised by the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment (2014). 
   ↩︎
3. HRT: Hormone Replacement Therapy is a medical process in which a person takes hormones to help their body develop characteristics that better align with their gender identity, commonly used by transgender individuals as part of their transition. The treatment is usually done under medical supervision and may involve frequent blood tests. Though it is important to note that all transgender individuals need not go through HRT, and a person’s gender identity does not depend on medical transition or hormone therapy.
   ↩︎