Japan high court backs gender status change without surgery

By Karin Kaneko | Staff writer

Jul 10, 2024

A Japanese high court ruled on Wednesday that a transgender woman should be able to change the sex assigned to them at birth in their family registry without having to undergo surgery, as is currently required by law — a development that is likely to put more pressure on the government to revise the law.

The 2003 law on gender dysphoria sets out two contentious requirements that require surgery for a person to have their legal gender status changed:

• The person should have no reproductive glands, or have their functions of reproductive glands permanently lost
• The person should have a body resembling the genital organs of the opposite gender

In October last year, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the first of the two requirements was unconstitutional. However, it did not rule on the second clause and sent the case back to the high court.

Wednesday's high court ruling in western Japan stated that the plaintiff already resembles the opposite gender in bodily appearance — a result of hormone therapy — and that there was no need for her to receive sterilization surgery.

Kazuyuki Minami, the plaintiff's lawyer, requested that the location of the high court remain anonymous for privacy reasons.

The decision also touched on the plaintiff's right to avoid having to undergo an invasive surgical procedure.

"(The law) gives them a tough either-or choice of having the surgery, thereby eliminating the right not to damage one's body, or eliminating the right to enjoy the legal benefits based on their gender identity," according to the ruling.

The plaintiff, a trans woman in her 30s, issued a statement through her lawyer, expressing her happiness and appreciation for her supporters.

"The wish I've had for as long as I can remember has finally come true," the plaintiff said. "I am very happy to be free from living with the difficulties of having a gap between my social gender and the gender on my family registry."

The plaintiff's lawyer also welcomed the high court's decision.

"Although the ruling didn't say outright that it was unconstitutional, it was a good decision because it said the surgery requirement could be in violation of the Constitution," he said.