The policy uses irresponsible, alienating, unacceptable and limited language, especially for official/government messaging which erases non-binary gender.
Published Nov 27, 2025 | 12:35 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 27, 2025 | 12:35 PM
Karnataka’s move opens a necessary conversation about bodily rights at work, but its potential for justice depends on whether it evolves towards intersectional, gender-inclusive and worker-centred implementation that truly includes all who bleed.
Synopsis: Menstrual leave alone cannot substitute for bigger structural changes. Broader sick leave options, rest facilities, flexible hours and non-discrimination laws/protections are needed to prevent stigma and hiring bias.
As a neuroqueer, gender fluid, assigned female at birth (AFAB) asexual person, I find the
Karnataka Menstrual Policy exclusionary — it triggers my body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria as I never identified with the sexual and reproductive aspects of cisgender heterosexual (cishet) women/girls. Further, the policy ignores menopausal issues too.
So, diverse LGBTIQAP+ persons reflected on how the policy has omitted our unique menstrual
and menopausal experiences. Mohammed Ali Khan, Intersex rights activist and trans
community health researcher, Bengaluru, said, “We should stop thinking that menstrual leave
policies favour one gender. Menstruation isn’t exclusive to cisgender women; many transgender
men, gender diverse, intersex and other persons menstruate too. So, when menstrual leave
includes only cishet women, we quietly erase many who menstruate, experience its physical
and emotional toll and deserve rest, care and dignity.”
Khan added that presuming everyone will identify as women for menstrual leave is
absurd: no one will change gender identity just for leave. This misunderstands gender
diversity and menstruators’ realities.
Menstrual leave isn’t gender privilege but recognises an ignored and stigmatised sociobiological reality. It’s about building workplaces understanding that inclusion doesn’t stop at hiring women; it extends to policies that make space for everyone’s bodies, needs and rhythms. So instead of gatekeeping who deserves menstrual leave, we should expand our understanding of menstruators and ensure none should prove their identity for dignity.
Lipi, a Gender-fluid lesbian, UX designer, researcher and illustrator, Karnataka, remarked, “I
don’t regard menstrual leave a celebration but a bare minimum, achieved late. Further, this paid
leave will impact employment opportunities of people who’re likely to use it. Also the terminology
should be menstruators instead of women with periods.”
Payal Dhar, Queer journalist and author, Bengaluru, observed, “The policy uses irresponsible, alienating, unacceptable and limited language, especially for official/government messaging which erases my non-binary gender. Persons of any gender can menstruate. I am already misgendered and challenged as an everyday experience. And I also feel angry for all those women who don’t menstruate and are therefore considered incomplete.”
Raising questions about the relevant policy drafting committee’s composition, and if it included
menstruators, Fred Rogers, a person of transmasculine experience, from Chennai and I
wonder who decided that 12 days annual menstrual leave suffice. Fred asked, “As we AFAB,
Transgender and Gender Diverse (TGD) persons/communities menstruate too, why are we
excluded? Such exclusion in policy leads to health inequities for AFAB TGD communities and
clearly, we AFAB TGD communities are sidelined by policy makers. In a patriarchal country like
India, where menstruation is stigmatised and a taboo, what is the government doing to change
this?”
In fact, Fred and this writer found outrageous, sexist and definitely unsolicited comments on social media (most probably from cisgender men or their bots) that one-day monthly menstrual leave is unnecessary — reiterating India’s deep rooted patriarchy.
Dr Kimberly d’Souza, Community Health Physician, Karnataka, opined, “I believe that Karnataka’s new menstrual leave policy importantly recognises menstrual health as a legitimate
workplace concern rather than a private issue. It declares that workers’ bodies and health needs
deserve structural support. However, framing this policy solely for women employees risks
excluding the realities of many menstruators who do not identify as women. Transgender men,
non-binary and gender-diverse (AFAB) people, some intersex and perimenopausal individuals,
also experience menstruation and related symptoms, yet remain invisible in gender-binary
policy design.”
Dr Kimberly added that its language subverts the policy’s intent to advance equality. True social
justice lies in expanding, not narrowing, care circles. Inclusive policies should acknowledge
menstruation as a physiological experience, not a gender identity marker. She believes the
entitlement should therefore apply to all menstruating employees or those experiencing
menstrual/gynaecological symptoms, with confidentiality ensured and no medical proof
demanded.
But, menstrual leave alone cannot substitute for deeper structural changes. Broader
sick leave options, rest facilities, flexible hours and non-discrimination laws/protections are
needed to prevent stigma and hiring bias. Otherwise, such policies may reinforce workplace
inequality by labelling menstruators as less productive, especially from a capitalistic viewpoint.
“I also believe that the policy, while progressive in intent, is inherently caste and class
discriminatory at present. Those in formal, salaried employment will most likely benefit, while
many informal, daily wage and caste oppressed workers such as domestic, sanitation and
manual labourers remain excluded. These groups lack access to paid leave while facing
deep-rooted stigma around menstruation, intersecting with caste purity notions. Any menstrual
policy that ignores these structural inequities risks reinforcing privilege rather than dismantling it.
Specifically, transgender, intersex or non-binary persons who are Dalit, will be excluded. In that
aspect, religion also plays a huge role in perpetuating stigma which also affects workplace
attitudes. I believe Karnataka’s move opens a necessary conversation about bodily rights at
work, but its potential for justice depends on whether it evolves towards intersectional,
gender-inclusive and worker-centred implementation that truly includes all who bleed,” Dr Kimberly summed up.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
