Human rights violations and associated factors of the Hijras in Bangladesh-A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Hijras in Bangladesh face considerable discrimination, stigma, and violence despite the 2013 legislation that recognized Hijras as a third gender. There is a dearth of published literature describing the extent of human rights violations among this population and their associated factors.
METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 346 study participants aged 15 years and older, living in five urban cities of Bangladesh who self-identified as Hijra, in 2019. The six human rights violation indicators (Economic, Employment, Health, Education, Social and Civic and Political Right) assessed were categorized as binary. Associations between sociodemographic characteristics and the six human rights violations were tested using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: Human right violations including economic, educational, political, employment, health and social/civil right violations were reported in 73.3%, 59.3%, 58.5%, 46.4%, 42.7%, and 34.4% of the participants, respectively. Economic rights violations were associated with bisexuality (Adjusted odds ratios [AOR] 3.60, 95%CI: 1.57, 8.26) and not living with family (AOR 2.71, 95%CI: 1.21, 6.09), while Hijras who earned more than 10,000 Bangladesh Taka experienced higher odds of educational (AOR 2.77, 95%CI: 1.06, 7.19) and political rights violations (AOR 4.30, 95%CI: 1.06, 7.44). Living in Dhaka city was associated with a reduced odds for economic and political rights violation while experiencing violations of one human right could lead to violation of another in the Hijra community.
CONCLUSION: Human rights violations were common in Bangladesh Hijras, particularly the Bisexual Hijras. Media and educational awareness campaigns are needed to address the underlying roots of a violation. Programs focused on the families, young people and high-income earners of this community are needed in Bangladesh.

Introduction

Since the late 20th century, some activists and non-government organizations (NGOs) have lobbied for official recognition of the Hijras (refers to transgender, intersex, and effeminate homosexual people) as a kind of "third sex" or "third gender", being neither man nor woman [1, 2]. In a landmark achievement, the Bangladesh Government formally recognized the Hijras in 2013, making them eligible for priority education and low paid jobs [3]. However, this was cut short after the Ministry of Social Welfare tried to employ fourteen Hijras as office assistants in 2015, but still required the applicants to undertake a physical medical examination, where they concluded that the majority of the applicants who possess male anatomical genitalia were males and for one applicant without a penis, he was considered ‘genetically male’. Following this, the Ministry terminated the appointments of all the Hijra applicants [4]. There are Hijras with penis and others without [5], and a common understanding is that Hijras are asexual, born with missing or ambiguous genitals, or “genitally handicapped” [4]. This misunderstanding may account for the Ministry of Social Welfare decision summarily dismissed the Hijra applicants in 2015.

The existence of Hijra is deeply rooted in Hinduism, including the deity Ardhanarisvara which is a composite male-female figure of Shiva and Parvati [6-8]. Gender variant individuals such as Amba/Shikhandin and Arjuna in the Mahabharata played a significant role in mythology. Historically, Hijras (then known as Khwaja Sara) were employed as custodians of the harem and held important positions in the court. The Hijras are central to Hindu practices, and as part of their badhai culture, they are often invited to the wedding, birth and other religious celebration [9]. The most important goddess for the Hijras is the Mother Goddess, Bahuchara Mata. In her name, Hijras perform their ritual function of giving blessings for fertility to a married couple or prosperity to a newborn child [4].

Bangladesh is a Sunni-majority country, and although historically a relatively tolerant and open-minded Muslim majority country, it remains conservative on homosexuals, bisexuals, and other gender and sexual diverse matters [10]. Although the Sunni fatwa (ruling on Islamic law) generally forbids gender reassignment surgery [11], the Bangladesh Government reached a landmark policy decision in 2013 that recognized Hijras as a third-gender, citing the universal human rights principles as a justification for the legislative change. The heteronormative concept of gender is dominant in Islam, and a trans person has to identify oneself as either a male or female [11]. The context is that each Hijra group in Bangladesh has both janana (non-emasculated) and chibry (emasculated) Hijra-members.

Despite comprising individuals of varying sex, gender, and sexuality, the Hijra community has often been referred to as ’female psyche in male physique’ [12]. Past studies indicated that such stigma and discrimination drive social isolation, decrease economic support and lead to poorer health and well-being [13]. The discrimination and the consequent vulnerabilities experienced by Hijras may lead to a higher risk of mental health problems such as long-term psychological complications from physical, verbal, and sexual abuse [14]. In practice, Hijras live an ostracized life in Bangladesh, work in working-class areas and have little interaction outside of their environment [4]. They find it challenging to find stable employment, housing, security, and social support. To survive, some are found begging for alms and engaged in the sex trade [15, 16] and face pervasive violence in public[17].

Whilst section 27 of Bangladesh’s Constitution specifies that ’all people are equal before the law and entitled to equal legal protection’, the fundamental enforcement of the recently recognized third gender’s civil rights remains uncertain [18]. Some Hijras in Bangladesh are victims of rape, but unlike women and girls, their reports of rape are never filed because police officers do not believe that someone would harass this deviant group [19]. This highlights that Bangladesh’s mainstream cultures cannot grasp and accept the multidimensional complexities of Hijras’ diverse sex, gender, and sexuality [20]. The categorization of Hijras as a third-gender in Bangladesh and the legal recognition of innate genital difference as the marker of authenticity creates a false hierarchy over who is a real Hijra and further precipitates the marginalization [4].

Although there is increasing awareness of gender and sexually diverse communities in developing countries [13, 21, 22] and the Bangladesh society is working towards achieving a country where every person, irrespective of their gender and sexuality, can lead a quality life with dignity, human rights and social justice [23], there is a paucity of data on the human rights of Hijra communities[24]. Hence, this study explored the factors associated with six human rights violation indicators of Hijras in Bangladesh as well as provide baseline data for future evaluation of the policy effects through the recognition of Hijras as the third gender in Bangladesh. In addition, the findings will identify the subpopulation to target for future interventions to enable the Bangladeshi Government to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 10) of reducing inequalities by a third through social inclusion among the Hijras by year 2030. The authors selected the components of human rights by following the major articles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly Resolution 217 A(III)). Civil, political, economic, cultural, health, and social rights are the legal bindings for the 192 member states of the United Nations [25].

Methods

Sample size determination

The required sample size was calculated using the statistical formula: n0 = . Where n0 is the sample size, z2 was standard value normal distribution at 95% confidence level (1.96), proportion (p) = 0.50 was considered because previous studies among the Hijras conducted in Bangladesh are mostly qualitative, and d2 was a maximum error (6%). Using an online sample size calculator (https://statulator.com/SampleSize/ss2PM.html [26]), the minimum sample size required was determined as 267, and considering a 30% non-response rate, a total sample size of 346 respondents will be required to detect statistical significance.

Setting

This cross‐sectional study was conducted between January 16–25, 2019, in five districts of Bangladesh (Dhaka/Gazipur, Chattogram, Mymensingh, Narayanganj and Rajshahi).

Data collection

Prior to data collection, the enumerators underwent a 3-days training at the Bandhu Social Welfare Society premises, which was facilitated by the first author and two other experienced staff from Bandhu Social Welfare Society. The enumerators consisted of Hijras and people from other sexually diverse groups involved with the data collection. Data were obtained through face-to-face interviews from the Hijra at their House. The organization provided a list of 1600 Hijras from which a total 346 Hijras were randomly selected. Participants were selected from each of the five districts (Dhaka, Chattogram, Mymensingh, Narayanganj and Rajshahi) using probability proportional to size (PPS). PPS method was used due to the different district sizes. The Bandhu Social Welfare Society (BSWS) was founded two decades ago and it is responsible for addressing the health care needs and human rights issues of gender and sexual minority populations. BSWS aims to achieve a vision of a Bangladesh where every person, irrespective of gender and sexuality, can live a quality life with dignity, human rights and social justice [27].

Study design

A structured questionnaire was developed, validated, and piloted prior to finalizing the study tool. The Kuder-Richardson (KR) Cronbach’s alpha (α) for binary data was used to test the internal consistency of the survey tool and measure the reliability of the study. Table 1 shows the internal consistency level of the survey items, which indicates that the tool was appropriate for each build, with the α-value ranging from 0.70 to 0.88. The survey items included demographic characteristics of the participants and the six human rights violations of economic, employment, health, education, social/civil and political rights. Data were posted daily after fieldwork, which enabled daily review of work done to check for inconsistencies and errors.

Table 1

Variable identification, Kuder-Richardson (KR) cronbach’s α of survey items and percentage responses of participants (n = 346).

Variables	Variable Definition	Positive response (%)	Cronbach’s α
No permanent income	Eco-1	284 (82.1)	0.74
Did temporary jobs	Eco-2	288 (83.2)	0.72
No permanent job	Eco-3	286 (82.7)	0.70
Economic right (all variables)	Eco-All		0.79
Resign jobs due to discrimination in the workplace	Emp-1	285 (82.4)	0.82
Education is a barrier to getting a private job	Emp-2	299 (86.4)	0.82
Education is a barrier to getting a public job	Emp-3	298 (86.1)	0.82
Dismissed from the job: Employer learnt of their feminine attitudes	Emp-4	289 (83.5)	0.82
Dismissed from the job: Employer thinks they are not suitable for the office environment	Emp-5	289 (83.5)	0.82
Victimized by other colleagues or officers	Emp-6	259 (74.9)	0.83
Employers think that they are not skilled enough	Emp-7	299 (86.4)	0.83
Employers think that they are not educated enough	Emp-8	284 (82.1)	0.84
Lack of coordination with employers	Emp-9	301 (87.0)	0.84
Lack of specific employment policies	Emp-10	311 (89.9)	0.83
The social taboo of the service recipients while getting services from them	Emp-11	317 (91.6)	0.83
Employers treated them as an unusual creature	Emp-12	331 (95.7)	0.83
Employment Rights (all variables)	Emp-All		0.84
The presence of them is not tolerated by family members	CR-1	232 (67.1)	0.86
Scolded by the elders in the family/society	CR-2	243 (70.2)	0.87
Suffered verbal and mental abuse from society	CR-3	248 (71.7)	0.87
Forced to leave their family	CR-4	186 (53.8)	0.86
Faced isolation and rejection from society	CR-5	163 (47.1)	0.86
Faced denial of family property	CR-6	185 (53.5)	0.86
Parents, siblings and relatives were not comfortable to disclose their identity	CR-7	232 (67.1)	0.86
People showed a negative attitude and negligence to them	CR-8	323 (93.1)	0.90
Harassed by Law enforcing agencies	CR-9	287 (83.9)	0.89
Tough life due to being excluded from society	CR-10	321 (92.8)	0.89
Treated as if they are less than humans in society	CR-11	306 (88.4)	0.89
Social and Civil Rights (all variables)	CR-All		0.88
Faced stigma and discrimination from the students	RE-1	298 (86.1)	0.85
Faced stigma and discrimination from the teachers	RE-2	235 (67.9)	0.86
Classmates scared and hated interacting and playing with Hijra Community	RE-3	275 (79.5)	0.83
Guardians of students not accepting coeducation of Hijra Community with their child	RE-4	262 (75.7)	0.84
Lack of enabling environment in the educational institutions	RE-5	290 (83.8)	0.83
Right to education (all variables)	RE-All		0.87
Sexual and reproductive health is not adequately addressed	HR-1	305 (88.2)	0.70
No access to public health service	HR-2	254 (73.4)	0.69
Access to private health service	HR-3	200 (57.8)	0.71
Lack of education on the health concern among HCPs	HR-4	284 (82.1)	0.70
Unacceptance of women and sexual abuse of men in the hospital wards	HR-5	276 (79.8)	0.71
Faced mental and sexual harassment during treatment.	HR-6	310 (89.6)	0.74
Health Rights (all variables)	HR-All		0.74
Authority does not emphasis on political participation.	PR-1	305 (88.2)	0.60
The rights specific to them is not included in the election manifesto	PR-2	299 (86.4)	0.59
Not included as candidates in elections and campaigns	PR-3	282 (81.5)	0.63
No separate voter list	PR-4	276 (79.8)	0.76
Face obstacles for obtaining NID and international passport	PR-5	285 (82.4)	0.63
Political Rights (all variables)	PR-All		0.70

Outcome variables

The six human rights violations of economic, employment, health, education, political, social/civil rights were the outcome variables in this study. There were three items on the economic right violations, twelve on right to employment, six on right to health, five items each on violations to education and political rights, and eleven on social/civil rights of the participants (see Table 1 for details). For each of the items, a positive response was coded as ‘1’ otherwise ‘0’ for a negative response. A human right violation was recorded if the participant had responded positively to all of the items in that section (i.e. a coding of ‘1’ to all items in that section). For example, on economic right, a violation was recorded only when ‘the items Eco-1, Eco-2 and Eco-2 in Table 1 were each coded as’1’, whereas any coding of ‘0’ in Eco-1, Eco-2 or Eco-2 was considered no violation to the economic right of the respondent. Similar coding method was applied to the employment, health, education, political, social/civil right violations.

Covariates

Table 2 shows the potential confounders in this study. They included the demographic characteristics of age, district (Dhaka and non-Dhaka), wages in Taka, Communities (Hijras and homosexuals), and educational status, working and living status. The six human rights violation variables were included when they were not used as outcome variables during the statistical analysis (Table 2).

Table 2

Participant Characteristics and the categories of human right violations (n = 346).

The non-Dhaka district includes: Chattogram, Mymensingh, Narayanganj and Rajshahi districts.

Variables	Frequency (n)	Per cent (%)
Demography
Age in years
15–25	194	55.6
26+	155	44.4
District
Non-Dhaka	235	68.1
Dhaka/Gazipur	110	31.9
Hijra Communities
Bisexuality	200	57.8
Homosexuality	146	42.2
Educational status
Primary	70	20.2
Secondary	196	56.7
Tertiary	80	23.1
Working status
Unemployed	72	20.6
Employed	277	79.4
Wages in Taka
0–5000	73	21.3
5000–10000	164	47.8
10000+	106	30.9
Living status
With family	180	52.0
Without family	166	48.0
Human rights
Economic right
No	93	26.7
Yes	256	73.4
Health right
No	200	57.3
Yes	149	42.7
Employment right
No	187	53.6
Yes	162	46.4
Right to education
No	142	40.7
Yes	207	59.3
Social and Civil right
No	229	65.6
Yes	120	34.4
Political right
No	145	41.6
Yes	204	58.5

Ethics and consent

The study was approved by the Bandhu Social Welfare Society ethical committee. Data collected from the field was treated with high confidentiality, and prior to data collection, the participants were informed of the confidentiality of the information they provide. Verbal and written consent was obtained from all the participants, and the participants’ confidentiality and privacy were maintained. The study adhered to the tenets of Helsinki’s Declaration and data collection tools focused on the UDHR values.

Statistical analysis

Frequency tabulations were used to describe the potential covariates, and this was followed by the prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the six human rights violations in this study. Simple, bivariate and multiple logistic regression were performed to determine the factors associated with the six human rights violation outcomes. To assess the factors associated with each of the six human right variables, all the sociodemographic variables including the human right variables that were not used as the outcome variable in that regression, were taken as covariates. Thus, six logistic regression analysis corresponding to the six human right violation outcomes were conducted and their association with the demographic variables were tested using odds ratios (OR) and their 95%CIs. All analyses were carried out using STATA/MP version 14 (Stata Corp 2015, College Station, TX, USA) and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Characteristics of the study population

Three hundred and forty-six Bangladeshi Hijras participated in this study, and the breakdown of their characteristics, including the proportion that reported human rights violations, are shown in Table 2. More than half of the respondents were aged 15–25 years, self-reported as being bisexual, had at least a secondary education and lived with their families. About 68% of them lived outside of the capital city Dhaka. Although the majority (79.4%) were employed, less than one-third earned more than 10,000 Taka at the time of this study, and about two-thirds reported violations of their human rights (73.4%).

Prevalence of human right violations among the Hijra communities in Bangladesh

Fig 1 shows the prevalence and 95% CI of the six human rights violations reported among the Hijras in Bangladesh. About two-third (73%) of the participants had experienced economic rights violations, with more than half of them reporting violations to their political and educational rights. The prevalence of health and Social/civil rights violations was comparatively lower than other human rights violations among the Hijras.

Fig 1

Prevalence of six human rights violations of Bangladeshi Hijras.

Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Univariate analysis of factors associated with the six human rights violations among the Hijras communities in Bangladesh

Table 3 shows the odds ratios and 95%CI of the factors related to violation of Human rights in the Bangladesh Hijras. Hijras who lived in the Dhaka region, those who completed university education, those employed and Hijras who earned more than 10,000 Bangladesh Taka at the time of this study reported lower odds of violating their basic human rights. Age was associated with human rights violations in this community with lower odds among those aged 26 years and over compared with younger people (<26 years). Hijras whom self-reported to be bisexual had lower odds of violations of their political rights.

Table 3

Simple logistic analysis of six human rights violations in the Bangladeshi Hijras.

Odds ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Confidence Intervals (CI) that exclude 1.00 are statistically significant at p<0.05 level and were bolded. Empty cells represent the human rights category that wasused as anoutcome variable for that model. The non-Dhaka districts included:Chattogram, Mymensingh, Narayanganj and Rajshahi districts.

Variables	Economic rights	Employment rights	Health rights	Education rights	Social and Civil rights	Political rights
Demography	OR[95%CI]	OR[95%CI]	OR[95%CI]	OR[95%CI]	OR[95%CI]	OR[95%CI]
Age in years
26+ (15–25, OR = 1)	1.02 [0.63, 1.64]	1.05 [0.69,1.60]	0.56 [0.36, 0.86]	0.59 [0.38, 0.91]	0.55 [0.35, 0.87]	1.02 [0.66, 1.56]
District
Dhaka/ Gazipur (Non-Dhaka, OR = 1)	0.15 [0.09, 0.26]	1.26 [0.80, 1.99]	1.08 [0.69, 1.71]	1.58 [0.98, 2.53]	1.39 [0.87, 2.23]	0.06 [0.03, 0.10]
Hijra Communities
bisexuality (homosexuality, OR = 1)	1.37 [0.83, 2.24]	.94 [0.61, 1.44]	1.80 [1.17, 2.77]	0.89 [0.58, 1.38]	0.83 [0.53, 1.30]	0.26 [0.16, 0.40]
Educational status
Secondary (Primary, OR = 1)	0.92 [0.47, 1.77]	0.89 [0.52, 1.53]	1.10 [0.63, 1.92]	1.22 [0.71, 2.12]	0.83 [0.47, 1.48]	1.32 [0.76, 2.29]
Tertiary	0.45 [0.22, 0.94]	0.60 [0.31, 1.14]	1.36 [0.71, 2.60]	1.65 [0.85, 3.20]	1.26 [0.65, 2.45]	1.49 [0.77, 2.85]
Working status
Employed (Unemployed, OR = 1)	1.07 [0.60, 1.92]	1.47 [0.87, 2.50]	0.98 [0.58, 1.66]	0.53 [0.30, 0.93]	0.78 [0.46, 1.34]	0.70 [0.41, 1.20]
Wages in Taka
5000–10000 (< 5000, OR = 1)	1.91 [0.99, 3.70]	1.31 [0.75, 2.29]	1.19 [0.68, 2.08]	0.97 [0.55, 1.69]	0.84 [0.47, 1.50]	1.10 [0.62, 1.96]
10000+	0.58 [0.30, 1.10]	0.95 [0.52, 1.73]	1.21 [0.66, 2.21]	1.38 [0.75, 2.54]	1.05 [0.57, 1.96]	0.44 [0.24, 0.81]
Living status
Without family (With family, OR = 1)	1.01 [0.62, 1.63]	1.11 [0.73, 1.70]	0.67 [0.44, 1.03]	0.94 [0.61, 1.44]	1.08 [0.69, 1.68]	0.96 [0.62, 1.47]
Categories of Human rights
Economic rights
Yes (No, OR = 1)	-	1.21 [0.75, 1.95]	1.04 [0.65, 1.69]	1.01 [0.62, 1.64]	0.88 [0.53, 1.44]	3.22 [1.97, 5.27]
Health rights
Yes (No, OR = 1)	1.04 [0.65, 1.69]	0.75 [0.49, 1.15]	-	4.21 [2.62, 6.78]	2.39 [1.52, 3.75]	0.65 [0.42, 0.99]
Employment rights
Yes (No, OR = 1)	1.21 [0.75, 1.95]	-	0.75 [0.49, 1.15]	0.91 [0.59, 1.39]	0.92 [0.59, 1.43]	0.57 [0.37, 0.88]
Right to education
Yes (No, OR = 1)	1.01 [0.62, 1.64]	0.91 [0.59, 1.39]	4.21 [2.62, 6.78]	-	3.48 [2.11, 5.73]	1.22 [0.79, 1.87]
Social and Civil rights
Yes (No, OR = 1)	0.88 [0.53, 1.44]	0.92 [0.59, 1.43]	2.39 [1.52, 3.75]	3.47 [2.11, 5.73]	-	1.36 [0.87, 2.15]
Political rights
Yes (No, OR = 1)	3.22 [1.97, 5.27]	0.57 [0.37, 0.88]	0.65 [0.42, 0.99]	1.22 [0.79, 1.87]	1.36 [0.87, 2.15]	-

There were significant associations between the different categories of human rights violations assessed in this study. The violation of one human right predicted the violation of another human right category. For example, Hijras, who reported violations of their economic rights, had higher odds of violating their political rights (OR 3.22, 95%CI 1.97, 5.27). Those who reported violations to their right to good health showed higher odds of violations to their education (OR 4.21, 95%CI 2.62, 6.78) and Social/Civil rights (OR 2.39, 95%CI 1.52, 3.75).

Multivariate analysis of six human right violations among the Hijras communities in Bangladesh

Table 4 presents the adjusted odds ratios and 95%CI of the factors associated with human rights violations in the Hijras. After adjusting for all the potential confounders, the Hijra community was more likely to experience economic rights violations but less likely to violate their political rights in this study. Hijras aged 26 years and over had lower odds of violations of their right to basic health than those younger than 26 years. Living without one’s family and being bisexual was associated with a 2.71 (95%CI 1.21, 6.09) and 3.60 (95%CI 1.57, 8.26) increase in the odds of violation of economic rights in this community.

Table 4

Multiple logistic analyses of six human right violations in Bangladesh Hijras.

Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% Confidence intervals (CI). Confidence Intervals (CI) that exclude 1.00 are statistically significant at p<0.05 level and were bolded. Empty cells represent the human rights category that wasused as anoutcome variable for that model. The non-Dhaka districts included:Chattogram, Mymensingh, Narayanganj and Rajshahi districts.

Variables	Economic rights	Employment rights	Health rights	Education rights	Social and Civil rights	Political rights
Demography	AOR[95%CI]	AOR[95%CI]	AOR[95%CI]	AOR[95%CI]	AOR[95%CI]	AOR[95%CI]
Age in years
26+ (15–25, OR = 1)	1.03 [0.56, 1.88]	1.00 [0.62, 1.61]	0.56 [0.34, 0.95]	0.84 [0.50, 1.41]	0.63 [0.37, 1.06]	0.81 [0.38, 1.70]
District
Dhaka/ Gazipur (Non-Dhaka, OR = 1)	0.15 [0.06, 0.35]	1.13 [0.54, 2.39]	0.66 [0.29, 1.52]	1.84 [0.80, 4.20]	2.06 [0.92, 4.62]	0.01 [0.00, 0.02]
Hijra Communities
bisexuality (homosexuality, OR = 1)	3.60 [1.57, 8.26]	0.69 [0.37, 1.29]	1.38 [0.71, 2.70]	0.78 [0.39, 1.55]	1.04 [0.54, 2.03]	0.01[0.00, 0.04]
Educational status
Secondary (Primary, OR = 1)	0.53 [0.24, 1.16]	1.02 [0.56, 1.85]	0.89 [0.46, 1.72]	1.37 [0.72, 2.62]	0.86 [0.45, 1.65]	1.13[0.43, 2.95]
Tertiary	0.22 [0.08, 0.57]	0.85 [0.40, 1.81]	0.95 [0.42, 2.15]	1.40 [0.61, 3.23]	1.20 [0.54, 2.70]	1.88[0.57, 6.28]
Working status
Employed (Unemployed, OR = 1)	0.61 [0.19, 1.91]	1.77 [0.79, 4.00]	1.83 [0.76, 4.39]	0.27 [0.11, 0.68]	0.95 [0.40, 2.25]	0.18[0.05, 0.68]
Wages in Taka
5000–10000 (< 5000, OR = 1)	1.33[0.49, 3.65]	0.98 [0.49, 1.99]	0.98 [0.46, 2.08]	1.89 [0.85, 4.18]	0.93 [0.43, 1.98]	1.58[0.47, 5.23]
10000+	1.22 [0.39, 3.85]	0.55 [0.23, 1.29]	0.74 [0.30, 1.85]	2.77 [1.06, 7.19]	0.94 [0.38, 2.33]	4.30[1.06, 7.44]
Living status
Without family (With family, OR = 1)	2.71 [1.21, 6.09]	0.72 [0.40, 1.30]	0.71 [0.37, 1.34]	1.12 [0.58, 2.13]	1.15 [0.60, 2.20]	0.37 [0.13, 1.05]
Human rights
Economic right
Yes (No, OR = 1)	-	1.30 [0.74, 2.28]	1.01[0.55, 1.87]	1.22 [0.66, 2.27]	0.93 [0.51, 1.70]	2.24 [0.93, 5.41]
Health right
Yes (No, OR = 1)	0.95 [0.52, 1.75]	0.62 [0.38, 1.01]	-	4.44 [2.60, 7.57]	2.12 [1.27, 3.53]	0.38 [0.17, 0.86]
Employment right
Yes (No, OR = 1)	1.29 [0.73, 2.28]	-	0.62 [0.38, 1.02]	1.14 [0.69, 1.88]	1.06 [0.65, 1.74]	0.32 [0.15, 0.66]
Right to education
Yes (No, OR = 1)	1.34 [0.73, 2.47]	1.10 [0.67, 1.80]	4.59[2.67, 7.91]	-	2.43 [1.41, 4.18]	1.47 [0.66, 3.31]
Social and Civil right
Yes (No, OR = 1)	1.01[0.55, 1.84]	1.05 [0.64, 1.70]	2.08 [1.25, 3.46]	2.41 [1.39, 4.16]	-	2.72 [1.15, 6.41]
Political right
Yes (No, OR = 1)	1.96[0.85, 4.50]	0.41 [0.21, 0.79]	0.38 [0.18, 0.79]	1.80 [0.88, 3.71]	2.45 [1.15, 5.22]	-

The odds for educational and political right violations were increased by 3 times (95%CI 1.06, 7.19) and 4 times (95%CI 1.06, 7.44) respectively, among Hijras who earned more than 10,000 Taka compared to those who made less than 5,000 Taka, after adjusting for the demographic factors. Participants who reported violations of their right to basic health had a higher likelihood of violations in other areas of their human rights (educational and social/civil rights). The odds of violation of the economic rights of the Hijras was increased by 4.6 times (95%CI 2.67, 7.91) compared with those who reported violations of their educational rights.

Discussion

This study used cross-sectional data to identify the several human rights violations experienced by the Hijra community in Bangladesh and examined the factors associated with human rights violations. The study found that human rights violations were commonly reported by the Bangladesh Hijra community, with two-thirds reporting that their economic rights were violated and more than half had experienced violations of their political and educational rights. Economic rights violations were more likely to be reported by bisexual Hijras and those who were not living with their families, while Hijras who earned more than 10,000 Bangladesh Taka were more likely to report violations to their educational and political rights. Those who experienced violations of one human right were more likely to report violations of another. The persistent violations of the Hijras human rights found in this study highlights the difficulties faced by the Bangladesh Government in meeting the UN SDGs 1, 4, 5, 8 and 10 of adequate access to education, inequality, poverty reduction, gender equality and economic growth among the Hijras people. Since Bangladesh is a signatory to the UDHR, the Government has an obligation to reduce the structural and cultural barriers to education for all its citizens.

Despite the Bangladeshi Government’s landmark policy decision in 2013 to recognize the rights of the Hijras, less than half of the Hijras in this study enjoyed basic rights to health, economic and social/civil rights. This finding is consistent with a previous study in Bangladesh on social exclusion of the Hijras [12], which showed that social and economic exclusion of the Hijras resulted in negative health, limited or no access to social, educational, legal and health services [12]. The finding that Hijras who earned high wages were more likely to report violations to their educational rights was also consistent with a recent qualitative study among Bangladeshi Hijras [17] which found that well-educated and trained Hijras opted for voluntary with non-governmental organizations due to their inability to secure government jobs. In another study [28], educated Hijras were less likely to secure gainful employment in the formal sector, suggesting a lack of legal recourse for discrimination among gender identity, including the Hijras in Bangladesh.

The higher odds of violations to good health and the lack of access to adequate medical health reported among the Hijra community in this study may be linked to the lack of legal identification documents due to discrimination of the Hijra community [29]. Whilst a little over half of the respondents in this study identified as transgender, a substantial proportion identified as homosexuals and bisexuals. These findings confirm the complexity of perceived sexuality and self-identity by the Hijra community as opposed to the lay view that Hijras are characterized only by their feminine behavioral traits and the struggle to accept anything outside of the male-female gender dichotomy.

Hijras who did not live with their families reported higher odds of economic violations than those who lived with their families. It has been reported that unusual feminine behaviors during early childhood by Hijras could bring shame to their families, making the family exclude them from family-related events [30]. In many cases, family members have made fun of these feminine behaviors and strongly oppose this behavior during adolescence [12, 30]. While Hijras generally dress as women, some may present themselves as men in different circumstances in order to avoid exploitation, harassment, and abandonment. Hijra members can, and some do, move between normative masculinity and Hijra [31]. For instance, the Sadrali Hijra in Bangladesh are non-emasculated and is often in a heterosexual marital relationship. The centrality of emasculation as a hallmark of being a Hijra is a remnant of the British colonization and may be based on the interpretation of the Quran. This became a barrier to how Bangladesh implemented its recent legislative change when Hijra applicants were terminated from the Ministry of Social Welfare for possessing male genitalia [4, 31]. Social exclusion and discrimination of the Hijras in Bangladesh should be discouraged at the family level. Family members, including parents, should have a positive attitude towards the Hijras from early childhood to after attaining puberty, including those born as hermaphrodites.

This study has several strengths and limitations. First, this is the first quantitative study that examined factors associated with the human rights status of the Hijra community after the Government of Bangladesh landmark decision of making Hijras the third gender in November 2013. Second, this study highlighted the gap in meeting the UN SDG 10 of reducing inequalities by 2030 in Bangladesh. Third, the study represents the wider view of the Bangladeshi Hijra population because it was conducted in the five large urban cities with the highest population of the Hijras in Bangladesh. Lastly, the six human rights items showed good internal consistency, and thus, these items could be used for future studies in this community. However, this study also has some limitations. First, the cross-sectional study design limits causal inference and recall bias may have influenced our findings due to self-reported data. Second, some misclassification bias may have occurred, leading to an overestimation or underestimation of the associated factors. Third, we did not account for some of the confounding factors, such as participation in HIV prevention programs, family relationships, community connectedness, which may have affected the factors associated with the status of human rights of the Hijra community in Bangladesh. Lastly, Hijras in less developed cities, including those living in rural and remote Bangladesh, were excluded from the current survey, and the results may not reflect their opinion.

Conclusions

This study’s findings suggest considerable variations in the prevalence of the six human rights violations of the Hijras, with the highest prevalence for economic rights violations of the Hijras and the lowest prevalence for social and civil rights violations. The study indicated that Hijras, who earned more than 10,000 Bangladesh Taka and those living with family members, had a higher likelihood of reporting human rights violations in Bangladesh. The Hijra community is diverse, and its members share commonalities as a function of their status as sexual minorities and concomitant issues of marginalization, discrimination, and heterosexism. This study suggests the need to implement interventional programs at school, community, and national levels. Policy interventions can be introduced at the school level to support sexually, and gender diverged students and awareness campaigns organized within school communities to tackle anti-Hijra harassment within the school environment. At the community level, early interventions such as media campaigns on awareness and acceptance campaigns are needed to inform the public on the challenges faced by members of the Hijra communities. In contrast, increased access to education, greater representation of Hijras in government offices are needed at the national level. These interventions are necessary if the Government is working towards improving the social inclusion of Hijras to meet the UN SDG 10 of reducing inequalities by 2030 in Bangladesh.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

20 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-17167

Human Rights Violations and Associated Factors of the Hijras in Bangladesh – A Cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ABIR,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Enamul Kabir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

a) The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

b) A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

c) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

"NO: The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: "Legacy Global Consultancy,"

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please upload a copy of Figure 1, to which you refer in your text on line 208. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In Introduction Authors have given good account of history about Hijras dating back to Mahabharatha and to the present. They have explained about sexual, social and economic difficulties faced by Hijras

The study design and the formula used are appropriate for the study

Univariate analysis of factors associated with the six human right violations explained well.

Hijras staying without their families suffering more - is a fact and well recorded

The positive aspect of this study is the authors have explained the strengths and limitations of their study

Suggestion: In their future study they may conduct similar study with normal males females as their study subjects so as to know their behavioral aspects towards Hijras and their opinion about Hijras rights in the society

Reviewer #2: Introduction: Needs improvements in its structure. I believe that the entire historical process is important, however, in the end, I cannot have a dimension of the research problem. It is necessary to clarify the search problem in the introduction.

Methods: Regarding the sample, I believe it needs more detail in the selection process.

Needs improvement in the outcome variable. How was it created? This is not clear.

Statistical analyzes need more detail. How did you carry out the process of creating the models?

Did you check the final fit of the model? Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit method?

What is the percentage of explanation of the variance of each adjusted model?

Results: When Cronbach's alpha was less than 0.7%, what was done with the variable? Needs detailing.

Figure 1 did not come in the file.

Discussion:

Needs more detail of the findings compared to the literature.

The limitation of the study design is inherent to the design. It does not constitute a limitation of your study.

Reviewer #3: The topic is important. However, the reviewer has some observations:

General: Writing could be improved. Examples are numerous.

The first sentence in abstract- '..........to preserve the rights of their right' is not clear. Needs to be rephrased.

In the Introduction section, the authors should briefly rationalize why they have measured 'the six human rights violations' among the Hijras in Bangladesh, with appropriate reference(s).

Please split the paragraph under the heading 'Setting'. It is suggested to keep all the texts, from the sentence 'prior to data collection........', under a different heading 'Data collection'.

It is not clearly mentioned how the samples were selected from each district. Equally from each district? (line 153)

Please briefly write about Bandhu Social Welfare Society (line 154, page 8).

Please keep consistency in mentioning the name of the organization 'Bandhu Social Welfare Society' throughout the paper. You have written only 'Bandhu' at page 8 line 156. Better to use acronym (if any).

Please mention the total number of Hijras in the sampling frame provided by the organization. Example, out of XXX, you have randomly selected 346 (line 158).

The paragraph written under the 'Study design' is more about data collection tool/data collection, not about study design. The study is simply a 'cross-sectional' in design. Please move the paragraph under a different heading 'Data collection/data collection tool'.

It is suggested to write covariates, rather than confounding variables. (line 175).

Figure 1 is missing! I don't see Figure 1 in the document.

How is 73% 'about one-third'(line 209). Please make correction.

Different human rights reported under 'Table 2' are not participant characteristics. Please remove the estimates of human rights violations from 'Table 2' and report those under a different Table.

One of the objectives of this study is to identify the factors associated with primary outcomes (violation of human rights). So, this is not clear why the authors have shown the association of one primary outcome with other primary outcomes in univariate and multivariate regression model. Example: Economic right with health rights.

Reviewer #4: General Comments

It is a well-written article, and It is relevant to the area. E trata de um tema de suma importância e que merece ser amplamente debatido pela comunidade científica mundial.

However, we found some aspects that deserve to be better clarified

Comments

1. Introduction

• It is a well-written introduction, but too long. Try to cut it down a bit and transfer some parts to the discussion.

• Page 13 - Lines 139-141 – Check whether it would not be more accurate to report that the assessment of the violation of the Hijras' human rights was by self-report.

2. Methods

• Page 14 - Lines 152-153 – Explain why these five districts of Bangladesh were selected, and give more characteristics of these regions;

• Make the instrument available for analysis through some link.

3. Results

- It is always important to emphasize that the human rights violations were self-reported by the participants. To make clear how the events were verified.

- Was any assessment made of the severity of the human rights violations in each of the dimensions analyzed? I believe that there may have been violations of different severity

• Page 16 - Lines 204 – Convert the income to US$ (both in the text and in the Table), and state whether it is below or above the average income of workers in Bangladesh.

• Page 18 – Line 239 – Apparently there is an abrupt change in the ODDs for political rights violations in those who earned more than 10000 takas, when it came to multivariate analysis. Very strange this result. What could explain it?

• Page 23 – table 2 – Why didn't you subdivide the age groups into more categories? What is the reason for using only 15-25 and 26+?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

22 Jan 2022

The topic is essential. However, the reviewer has some observations:

1. General: Writing could be improved. Examples are numerous.

Response: The writing of the revised manuscript has been improved. See the highlighted changes across the manuscript.

2. The first sentence in the abstract- '..........to preserve the rights of their right' is not clear. It needs to be rephrased.

Response: Done. The Section was revised.

3. In the Introduction section, the authors should briefly rationalize why they have measured 'the six human rights violations' among the Hijras in Bangladesh, with appropriate reference(s).

Response: The following changes have been made;

The authors selected human rights components by following the significant articles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A). Civil, political, economic, cultural, health, and social rights are the legal bindings for the United Nations member states [25].

4. Please split the paragraph under the heading 'Setting'. It is suggested to keep all the texts, from the sentence 'before data collection........', under a different heading 'Data collection'.

Response: Done. The data collection subheading was created and repositioned in the manuscript.

5. It is not mentioned how the samples were selected from each district. Equally from each district? (line 153)

Response: The sentence below was included in the text:

"To be representative, the equal number of participants were selected from each district".

6. Please briefly write about Bandhu Social Welfare Society (line 154, page 8).

Response: We have provided some information about the Bandhu Social Welfare Society.

7. Please keep consistency in mentioning the name of the organization 'Bandhu Social Welfare Society' throughout the paper. You have written only 'Bandhu' at page 8 line 156. Better to use acronym (if any).

Response: We have maintained Bandhu Social Welfare Society across the manuscript.

8. Please mention the total number of Hijras in the sampling frame provided by the organization. Example, out of XXX, you have randomly selected 346 (line 158).

Response: The organization provided us with a list of 1600 Hijras. From the list, 346 Hijras were selected randomly.

9. The paragraph written under the 'Study design' is more about data collection tool/data collection, not about study design. The study is simply a 'cross-sectional' in design. Please move the paragraph under a different heading 'Data collection/data collection tool'.

Response: The Section has been revised, and the Section on 'study design' section moved into 'data collection.'

10. It is suggested to write covariates, rather than confounding variables. (line 175).

Response: Done

11. Figure 1 is missing! I don't see Figure 1 in the document.

Response: Figure 1 was included as a separate document in the previous submission. It is now inserted in the main manuscript text for quick visualization.

12. How is 73% 'about one-third'(line 209). Please make correction.

Response: This was a typo error and has been corrected.

13. Different human rights reported under 'Table 2' are not participant characteristics. Please remove the estimates of human rights violations from 'Table 2' and report those under a different Table.

Response: Table 2 showed the variables used in regression analysis. We have renamed Table 2 to reflect the contents. The new title reads:

a. Participant Characteristics and the categories of human rights violations (n=346).

No further change was made in the table

14. One of the objectives of this study is to identify the factors associated with primary outcomes (violation of human rights). So, this is not clear why the authors have shown the association of one primary outcome with other primary outcomes in univariate and multivariate regression model. Example: Economic right with health rights.

Response: Agreed and for clarity, now reads "six human rights violation indicators."

Submitted filename: Reviewers comments_26.9.21_sub.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Mar 2022

22 Mar 2022

Response to reviewer’s comments

We thank the reviewer for the very useful comments. We have addressed the comments below and used red fonts to highlight the sections in the manuscript where the requested changes were made.

Reviewer #2:

Question: Methods: Regarding the sample, I believe it needs more detail in the selection process.

Response: we have added the district sampled and indicated the reason for using PPS sampling method in our study.

Question: Needs improvement in the outcome variable. How was it created? This is not clear.

Response: We have added more to this section of the paper for clarity. The revised section now reads:

Outcome variables

The six human rights violations of economic, employment, health, education, political, social/civil rights were the outcome variables in this study. There were three items on the economic right violations, twelve on right to employment, six on right to health, five items each on violations to education and political rights, and eleven on social/civil rights of the participants (see Table 1 for details). For each of the items, a positive response was coded as ‘1’ otherwise ‘0’ for a negative response. A human right violation was recorded if the participant had responded positively to all of the items in that section (i.e. a coding of ‘1’ to all items in that section). For example, on economic right, a violation was recorded only when ‘the items Eco-1, Eco-2 and Eco-2 in Table 1 were each coded as’1’, whereas any coding of ‘0’ in Eco-1, Eco-2 or Eco-2 was considered no violation to the economic right of the respondent. Similar coding method was applied to the employment, health, education, political, social/civil right violations.

Question: Statistical analyses need more detail. How did you carry out the process of creating the models?

Response: We used “collin” command in STATA to check for collinearity and all the variables VIF were less than 4 which indicates that there is no collinearity. We also included all the covariates in the multiple logistic regression analysis at once. We conducted another analytical method by first doing a univariable logistic regression analysis including all the covariates and those with P value < 0.20 were retained and were used to build a multiple logistic regression model. For the multiple logistic regression, a manual backward elimination procedure was applied to remove non-significant variables (P > 0.05). The factors associated with each outcome variables obtained using the two statistical methods were similar with the method reported in the manuscript producing more associated factors. See Table 1 below for when we used the suggested method.

For the reason stated above, no change was made in the revised manuscript.

Table 1 – adjusted odds ratios - multiple logistic regression with retaining those with P value < 0.20

Variables Economic rights Variables Social and Civil rights

Demography AOR[95%CI] Health right AOR[95%CI]

Dhaka/ Gazipur (Non-Dhaka^, OR=1) 0.11 [0.06, 0.20] Yes (No, OR=1) 1.78 [1.10, 2.87]

Hijra Communities - Right to education

bisexuality (homosexuality, OR=1) 2.66 [1.29, 5.46] Yes (No, OR=1) 2.92 [1.73, 4.92]

Educational status - Variables Political rights

Secondary (Primary, OR=1) 0.56 [0.26, 1.20] District AOR[95%CI]

Tertiary 0.26 [0.10, 0.63] Dhaka/ Gazipur (Non-Dhaka^, OR=1) 0.01 [0.00, 0.01]

Living status - Hijra Communities

Without family (With family, OR=1) 2.17 [1.02, 4.58] bisexuality (homosexuality, OR=1) 0.02[0.01, 0.06]

Variables Health rights Working status

Right to education AOR[95%CI] Employed (Unemployed, OR=1) 0.11[0.03, 0.36]

Yes (No, OR=1) 3.76[2.28, 6.19] Wages in Taka

Social and Civil right 5000-10000 (< 5000, OR=1) 1.97 [0.61, 6.31]

Yes (No, OR=1) 1.78[1.09, 2.92] 10000+ 5.68 [1.47, 22.01]

Political right Health right

Yes (No, OR=1) 0.54 [0.34, 0.87] Yes (No, OR=1) 0.48 [0.23, 0.99]

Variables Education rights Employment right

Employed (Unemployed, OR=1) AOR[95%CI] Yes (No, OR=1) 0.33 [0.17, 0.68]

Wages in Taka 0.28 [0.13, 0.63] Social and Civil right

5000-10000 (< 5000, OR=1) 1.93 [0.89, 4.20] Yes (No, OR=1) 2.58 [1.17, 5.67]

10000+ 3.11 [1.32, 7.36] Variables Employment rights

Health right Political right AOR[95%CI]

Yes (No, OR=1) 3.77 [2.29, 6.22] Yes (No, OR=1) 0.57 [0.37, 0.88]

Social and Civil right

Yes (No, OR=1) 2.69 [1.57, 4.60]

Question: Did you check the final fit of the model? Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit method?

Response: Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit was not used in this study because it is considered to be obsolete by statisticians for the following reasons: (1) It does not properly take overfitting into account, (2) poor power in small data sets and, (3) dependence on arbitrary binning of predicted probabilities (i.e. the value 10 is arbitrary) and often has power that is too low (Fagerland & Hosmer, 2012; Hosmer, 1997). However and for your record, we have produced the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit for the 6 outcome variables and the result indicated a good fit (P > 0.05) for all the six human right violations outcomes examined in this study (see Table 2 below). Hence, no change was made to the manuscript base on the limitations discussed above, unless the editor thinks it is necessary as a supplementary table while noting the limitations.

Table 2 Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit for the 6 human right outcomes

Human right variables chi-square P-value

Economic 7.5 0.481

Employment 11.0 0.201

Health 4.8 0.783

Education 1.6 0.980

Social and Civil 13.4 0.100

Political 10.5 0.231

References:

Fagerland, M. W., & Hosmer, D. W. (2012). A generalized Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test for multinomial logistic regression models. The Stata Journal, 12(3), 447-453.

Hosmer, D.W. (1997). "A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model". Stat Med. 16 (9): 965–98

Question: What is the percentage of explanation of the variance of each adjusted model?

Response: We did not report variance for each of our adjusted model because: (1) Logistic regression will always be heteroscedastic – the error variances differ for each value of the predicted score. (2) For each value of the predicted score there would be a different value of the proportionate reduction in error. Therefore, it is inappropriate to think of R² as a proportionate reduction in error in logistic regression (Cohen et al. 2002). However, and for your record, we have produced the R² for the 6 human right outcomes (see Table 3 below). Hence, no change was made to the manuscript base on the limitations discussed above.

Table 3 Maximum Likelihood and Pseudo R² for the 6 human right outcomes

Human right variables Maximum Likelihood R2 Pseudo R2

Economic 0.200 0.194

Employment 0.060 0.045

Health 0.185 0.150

Education 0.191 0.157

Social and Civil 0.115 0.095

Political 0.517 0.538

Reference:

Cohen, Jacob; Cohen, Patricia; West, Steven G.; Aiken, Leona S. (2002). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.)

Submitted filename: Response_Reviewer2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 May 2022

Human Rights Violations and Associated Factors of the Hijras in Bangladesh – A Cross-sectional study

PONE-D-21-17167R2

Dear Dr. ABIR,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Enamul Kabir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The Authors have answered the queries raised by the reviewers and incorporated the required data and details in the text. No more corrections

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

13 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-17167R2

Human Rights Violations and Associated Factors of the Hijras in Bangladesh – A cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Abir:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Enamul Kabir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE