scoring guide
a plain-language walkthrough of the identities, categories, and outcomes that shape each score on the the out index™
a plain-language walkthrough of the identities, categories, and outcomes that shape each score on the the out index™
Each identity is scored across the same legal and policy domains. The blurbs below explain what each identity represents in the Out Index framework.
Men who love men (MLM) is an umbrella term that encompasses any person who identifies as male and experiences romantic, emotional, or sexual attraction towards other people who are also male-identifying. This includes gay men, bisexual men, pansexual men, and any other male-identifying individuals whose attractions include men, regardless of how they personally label their orientation or whether they choose to use a label at all.
The term is intentionally broad and inclusive, acknowledging that attraction and identity exist on a spectrum and that not everyone who experiences same-sex attraction will identify with more specific terms such as "gay" or "queer." MLM as a descriptor is particularly valued by those who wish to centre the experience of attraction itself rather than adhering to a fixed identity label, and it affirms that trans men, non-binary individuals who identify as male, and all others under the male-identifying umbrella are fully included.
Criminalisation is the single most consequential legal factor affecting LGBTQIA+ people worldwide. Where same-sex intimacy or gender-diverse identities are treated as criminal offences, every other area of legal protection becomes largely academic: anti-discrimination laws, hate crime provisions, and family rights mean little when the very existence of LGBTQIA+ people is subject to prosecution. This category assesses whether criminal penalties apply on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and the severity of those penalties where they exist.
The spectrum of criminalisation ranges from full decriminalisation, where no criminal sanctions apply, through to jurisdictions that impose fines, corporal punishment, imprisonment, or in the most extreme cases the death penalty for same-sex conduct. A critical distinction is also drawn between laws that exist on the statute books but are not actively enforced (dormant) and those that are applied in practice (enforced), as the practical impact on LGBTQIA+ people differs significantly between the two. Even dormant criminal laws create a chilling effect on freedom, visibility, and access to services, and can be revived at any time by a change in political will.
Same-sex intimacy and LGBTQIA+ identities are not criminalised in this destination, and no criminal penalties apply on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Criminal laws that impose non-custodial penalties such as fines or community service for same-sex conduct exist but are not actively enforced in practice.
Criminal laws imposing non-custodial penalties such as fines for same-sex conduct are actively enforced, with documented prosecutions occurring.
Criminal laws that allow corporal punishment for same-sex conduct exist but are not actively enforced in practice.
Criminal laws allowing corporal punishment for same-sex conduct are actively enforced, with documented cases occurring.
Criminal laws imposing imprisonment for same-sex conduct exist but are not actively enforced in practice.
Criminal laws imposing imprisonment for same-sex conduct are actively enforced, with documented prosecutions and incarcerations occurring.
Criminal laws providing for the death penalty for same-sex conduct exist but are not actively enforced in practice.
The death penalty for same-sex conduct is actively enforced, representing the most severe criminalisation outcome.
No verified data is currently available to assess the criminalisation status in this destination.
Access protection refers to the legal and institutional frameworks that determine whether LGBTQIA+ people can participate in civic, medical, and public life on equal terms with their peers. This category examines whether laws, policies, or administrative practices create barriers to participation in key areas such as healthcare, public services, and national institutions. Where access barriers exist, they often reflect broader societal attitudes that treat LGBTQIA+ identities as grounds for exclusion or differential treatment rather than neutral characteristics deserving equal regard.
The subcategories within access protection span areas including gender-affirming healthcare, blood donation eligibility, military service, and access to public bathroom facilities. Each of these domains represents a distinct arena in which LGBTQIA+ people may encounter formal or informal restrictions that affect their ability to live freely and with dignity. Taken together, they paint a picture of how inclusive a destination's public institutions and services are in practice, not just in principle.
Blood donation eligibility has historically been used as a site of legal and institutional discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people, most notably against men who have sex with men, who faced permanent lifetime bans in many countries from the 1980s onwards in response to the HIV epidemic. While scientific understanding and testing technology have advanced considerably since that era, many jurisdictions have been slow to update their policies to reflect contemporary evidence, and some retain deferral periods or permanent bans that are not applied to any other demographic group on comparable grounds.
This subcategory assesses whether LGBTQIA+ people are subject to deferral periods, permanent bans, or other eligibility restrictions that do not apply equally to their heterosexual or cisgender peers. The gold standard is a system of equal access based on individual behavioural risk assessment rather than categorical exclusion based on identity or relationship type. Discriminatory blood donation policies, even when framed in public health terms, communicate a stigmatising message and have a real deterrent effect on LGBTQIA+ people's willingness to engage with healthcare systems more broadly.
All people are assessed on individual behavioural risk criteria, and no deferral or ban applies on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or relationship type.
A deferral period of less than twelve months applies to some LGBTQIA+ donors, typically men who have sex with men, based on criteria that do not apply to equivalent heterosexual donors.
A deferral period of twelve months or more applies to some LGBTQIA+ donors, reflecting a significant but not permanent restriction that is not applied on equal terms to heterosexual donors.
No formal policy framework governing LGBTQIA+ blood donation eligibility has been identified or is in effect.
A lifetime ban on blood donation applies to some or all LGBTQIA+ donors, typically men who have sex with men, regardless of individual risk factors or testing technology.
No verified data is currently available to assess blood donation eligibility for LGBTQIA+ people in this destination.
Gender-affirming care encompasses the range of medical and psychological services that support trans and non-binary people in aligning their bodies and social presentation with their gender identity. This may include hormonal therapies, surgical procedures, voice therapy, fertility preservation, and access to mental health support from practitioners with expertise in gender diversity. Access to gender-affirming care is recognised by major international medical bodies as medically necessary for many trans and non-binary people, and its availability has been directly linked to significant improvements in mental health outcomes, including reductions in depression, anxiety, and suicidality.
This subcategory measures whether a legal or administrative framework exists to ensure trans and non-binary people can access gender-affirming care, and the strength and scope of that framework. At the positive end, a comprehensive legal framework provides a clear statutory right to access care with appropriate funding and oversight. At the negative end, some jurisdictions have enacted statutory or constitutional bans on gender-affirming care, including for adults, representing a direct state intervention against the wellbeing of trans and non-binary people. The accessibility and quality of gender-affirming care is one of the most significant determinants of health and quality of life for many people in these communities.
A statutory framework explicitly guarantees access to the full range of gender-affirming care, with clear rights, pathways, and funding mechanisms in place.
A legal framework exists that enables access to gender-affirming care, but coverage is incomplete, with some services, age groups, or populations excluded or subject to additional conditions.
Access to gender-affirming care exists through administrative policy or guidance rather than explicit legislation, creating a more fragile basis that may be subject to change without legislative action.
No legal or administrative framework governing access to gender-affirming care exists, leaving access entirely dependent on individual providers without systemic oversight or protection.
A framework exists but imposes significant barriers or restrictions on access to gender-affirming care, such as extensive waiting periods, mandatory gatekeeping requirements, or exclusions that limit access for many people.
Legislation explicitly prohibits access to some or all gender-affirming care, either for specific age groups or more broadly, representing a direct legislative barrier to care.
A constitutional or equivalent highest-law provision prohibits gender-affirming care, making legislative change to improve access significantly more difficult.
No verified data is currently available to assess the gender-affirming care framework in this destination.
The right to serve in the armed forces on equal terms is both a practical matter and a symbolic one, reflecting whether the state regards LGBTQIA+ citizens as full and equal members of the national community. Historically, many countries excluded LGBTQIA+ people from military service entirely, and some continue to do so through explicit statutory bans or through practical conditions that make open service impossible. In countries without a standing military or compulsory service obligations, this subcategory is treated as not applicable rather than penalised.
This subcategory examines whether LGBTQIA+ people can serve openly without conditions, whether conditional or restricted service is permitted, or whether a statutory or constitutional ban is in effect. Equal service means that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity is neither a barrier to enlistment nor a ground for dismissal or differential treatment during service. Limited equal service reflects jurisdictions where formal equality exists but implementation is incomplete or informal barriers remain. Conditional service captures situations where LGBTQIA+ people may serve but face requirements, such as concealment of their identity, that do not apply to others.
LGBTQIA+ people may serve openly in the armed forces on identical terms to their heterosexual and cisgender peers, with no restrictions based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
This destination does not operate a standing military force or maintain compulsory service obligations, making this subcategory inapplicable.
Formal equality in military service exists but implementation is incomplete, or informal barriers remain that affect the practical experience of LGBTQIA+ service members.
No formal policy governing LGBTQIA+ military service has been identified, leaving the situation unclear or dependent on informal practice.
LGBTQIA+ people may serve in the military but subject to conditions not applied to others, such as requirements to conceal their identity or restrictions on service roles.
Legislation explicitly prohibits LGBTQIA+ people from serving in the armed forces.
A constitutional or equivalent highest-law provision prohibits LGBTQIA+ people from military service, making reform significantly more difficult.
No verified data is currently available to assess military service rights for LGBTQIA+ people in this destination.
Access to public bathroom facilities that correspond to a person's gender identity is a practical daily necessity that has become a flashpoint in many jurisdictions' legal and political debates about trans and non-binary rights. For trans and non-binary people, being forced to use facilities that do not align with their gender identity can be distressing, expose them to harassment or violence, and in many cases cause them to avoid using public facilities altogether, which has knock-on effects on their ability to participate in work, education, and public life. The framing of bathroom access as a safety issue has been used in some jurisdictions to justify restrictive legislation, despite evidence suggesting that such restrictions actually increase risk for trans people.
This subcategory assesses whether legal or administrative frameworks exist to protect trans and non-binary people's access to appropriate facilities, whether protections have been inferred through broader equality or anti-discrimination legislation, or whether restrictive or punitive frameworks have been enacted. The most positive outcomes involve explicit legal protection for trans and non-binary bathroom access, while the most negative involve statutory or constitutional bans that expose people to legal penalty for using facilities consistent with their gender identity.
Explicit legal protection ensures trans and non-binary people may access bathroom and changing facilities consistent with their gender identity.
Legal protection for trans and non-binary bathroom access exists but is incomplete, covering some contexts or facilities but not all.
Trans and non-binary people's right to access appropriate bathroom facilities has been recognised through interpreted application of broader equality or anti-discrimination legislation rather than explicit provision.
No legal framework governing trans and non-binary access to bathroom facilities exists, leaving the matter unresolved and individuals without formal protection.
Restrictions on trans and non-binary bathroom access apply in particular settings or contexts, such as schools or government buildings, without a full statutory ban.
Legislation explicitly restricts or prohibits trans and non-binary people from using bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.
A constitutional or equivalent highest-law provision restricts trans and non-binary bathroom access, making reform significantly more difficult.
No verified data is currently available to assess public bathroom access rights in this destination.