Sahai responds to Jyoti’s questions: “What are the ways in which the media can push towards more holistic representation? And is there a way in which legal changes that have happened in the past few years help in doing this?”

(Edited, in the Sahai’s words):

The interest in trans people is only as recent as the NALSA judgment -- no one was interested in our stories with any dignity before the NALSA judgment. In fact, even today, the NASLA judgment is more progressive than the laws that have come after. And even today, often we have to rely on the NALSA judgment, to go to other parties, so whether it's the medical curricula conversation, whether it's NCERT -- all the time, transgender people rely on to the Constitution has been ramificated in NASLA.

That, I would say is the watershed moment in trans representation for sure, where we moved from the language of LGBTQI+ marginalization to a more central conversation about our lives.

My only suggestion in terms of what I would like to see in terms of getting representation is to say that in every story that one does around people that one speaks to more than one kind of trans person -- I cannot emphasize enough that the conversation around trans people is dominated by metropolitan, English-speaking Savarna trans people.

If your article on trans people does not have three different kinds of trans people, then know for a fact that your article is lacking really seriously in representing trans people.

Three is an arbitrary number. What I really really like, is for media houses to have reservations. But we are not ready for that conversation here.