In May 2024, Peru’s government issued a presidential decree that classified “trans‑identities” — including “transsexualism,” “gender identity disorders,” “cross‑dressing,” and related categories — as mental illnesses under the country’s national health insurance plan (PEAS).
The rationale offered by authorities was that this classification would allow transgender and gender‑diverse people access to mental health services and insurance coverage.
Many human rights groups, LGBTQ+ activists and experts strongly condemned the decree as discriminatory, archaic and stigmatizing.
📣 Reactions: protests and international criticism
In response to the decree, hundreds of people marched in the capital, Lima, demanding its repeal. Protest slogans included messages such as “We are trans and we are not sick.”
LGBTQ+ organizations criticized the decree for using outdated and pathologizing terminology that could legitimize harmful practices like conversion therapy.
International observers also flagged the classification as a serious setback for human rights and equality in Peru.
🔁 Partial Reversal — the government backtracks
On June 25, 2024, the country’s health ministry announced that it would stop listing transgender people as suffering from “mental disorders.”
Instead, the ministry said it would use the term “gender discordance” for mental and behavioural health classifications eligible for care, dropping the stigmatizing “mental illness” label.
Human rights defenders welcomed the move, seeing it as a corrective step — though many still regard the original decree and its attempted pathologization as harmful and symbolic of a broader climate of discrimination in Peru.
🧑⚖️ Broader significance & context
- The attempt to classify trans identity as a “mental disorder” echoed outdated classifications once included in earlier versions of diagnostic manuals — a view largely discarded today by major medical organizations.
The reversal underscores the impact of public pressure and activism, showing that stigmatizing policies can be challenged effectively.
But the episode also reveals how fragile rights protections remain for LGBTQ+ people in Peru, especially given that the decree occurred in a context where legal recognition and anti‑discrimination protections remain limited.
