Photo/Illutration Gen Suzuki, center, and his lawyers appear at a July 2021 news conference after submitting a request to a family court seeking a gender change without undergoing surgery. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

HAMAMATSU, Shizuoka Prefecture—For the first time, a family court approved the gender change in the family register of a transgender person who has not undergone surgery to remove reproductive organs.

The ruling was dated Oct. 11 and issued by the Hamamatsu branch of the Shizuoka Family Court.

It described as unconstitutional a legal provision stating that people diagnosed with gender identity disorder (GID) can only change their gender on the family register after the surgical procedure.

The ruling said the provision should be invalidated because it violates Article 13 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness.

The request for a gender change was submitted to the family court by Gen Suzuki, 48, of Hamamatsu.

A female at birth, Suzuki was diagnosed with GID when he was 40. He has since been living as a man after having his breasts removed and receiving male hormone injections.

He took the issue to the court because he did not want to undergo surgery to remove his ovaries, as required by law.

His lawyer argued the requirement violated his right to not have an invasive procedure performed on his body and his right to have his gender identity respected.

In its ruling, the family court said, “changing one’s gender was a compelling legal interest.” But it pointed out that the current condition restricted the freedom of individuals by forcing them to undergo surgery.

The legal provision said the removal of reproductive organs was necessary to prevent “social confusion” from arising if an individual who had legally changed their gender to male subsequently gave birth.

But the family court ruled any social confusion would be extremely limited since there are few cases of women giving birth before changing their gender.

The court also pointed to the international trend of no longer requiring forced sterilization to change one’s gender, as well as other developments.

It concluded that the provision’s objective of preventing social confusion had “reached a stage of lacking a need or rationality,” compared to the gravity of the human rights restrictions brought about by forced surgery.

The Supreme Court is expected to soon hand down a ruling related to the legal provisions surrounding gender change in another family law case.

Related News