Japan's Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking ruling on Wednesday, declaring a 2003 law that mandated the removal of reproductive organs for transgender individuals to officially change their gender unconstitutional.
This momentous decision, reached by the 15-judge Grand Bench of the top court, marked the first time that Japan's law requiring reproductive organ removal for state-recognized gender changes faced a constitutional challenge. This law has long been criticized by international human rights organizations and medical associations.
The court's ruling now necessitates a revision of the law by the government, offering transgender individuals the opportunity to change their gender on official documents without requiring surgical procedures.
The case leading to this ruling was initiated by a plaintiff who sought to change the gender on her family registry from her biologically assigned male gender to female. Her request was initially denied by lower courts.
This ruling comes at a time when issues surrounding the LGBTQ+ community are receiving increased attention in Japan and stands as a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights in the country.
The judges unanimously determined that the provision in the law mandating the loss of reproductive functions as a condition for a gender change was unconstitutional. The full details of the court's decision are not yet available.
Under the now-invalidated law, transgender individuals who wished to change their officially registered gender had to receive a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder and undergo surgery to remove their reproductive organs.
In Japan, the LGBTQ+ community and rights activists have been advocating for the passage of anti-discrimination legislation. These efforts intensified after a former aide to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida expressed his unwillingness to live near LGBTQ+ individuals and suggested that the country would face an exodus if same-sex marriage were permitted.
Japan lags behind other Group of Seven (G7) nations as the sole member that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage or establish comprehensive legal protections, including effective anti-discrimination laws.
The plaintiff in this case, identified only as a resident in western Japan, initially submitted the request in 2000, contending that the surgical requirement imposed a significant financial and physical burden and violated the equal rights protections guaranteed by the Japanese constitution.
There were hopes for a change in the law following an unprecedented decision by a local family court earlier this month. In that ruling, a transgender man's request for a gender change was accepted without requiring compulsory surgery, and the court declared the rule unconstitutional.
The special law enacted in 2004 mandated the removal of original reproductive organs, including testes or ovaries, for gender change registration, with the requirement that the individual's body "appears to have parts that resemble the genital organs" of the newly registered gender.
In more than 50 European and Central Asian countries with laws permitting gender changes on official documents, surgical removal of reproductive organs is not mandated, as indicated by the Shizuoka ruling. This practice has become commonplace in many regions worldwide.
Despite these significant legal developments, Japan remains a country where traditional paternalistic family values are highly valued, and the government remains conservative in embracing sexual and family diversity. Many LGBTQ+ individuals in Japan continue to conceal their sexuality due to fears of discrimination in workplaces and educational institutions.
Some groups opposing greater inclusivity for transgender individuals, particularly those transitioning from male to female, submitted petitions to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, urging the retention of the surgery requirement.
Several municipalities across Japan have started issuing partnership certificates for same-sex couples to simplify matters such as apartment rentals, but these certificates do not hold legal validity.
In 2019, the Supreme Court issued another ruling on a case brought by a transgender male seeking a gender registration change without the compulsory removal of sexual organs and sterilization surgery. In that decision, the court found the existing law constitutional. The court acknowledged that the law restricted freedom and may not align with evolving societal values, suggesting that it should be reviewed at a later time.
Â
