Photo/Illutration The Supreme Court hears arguments on surgery requirements for gender changes in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward on Sept. 27. (Hikaru Uchida)

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Oct. 25 that requiring transgender individuals to undergo surgery to remove their reproductive organs for gender changes in family registers is unconstitutional.

But the top court did not rule on the so-called appearance requirement in the law, meaning that many transgender people may still need operations to legally change their gender.

The current law stipulates five requirements for gender changes on registers. At issue were two surgical requirements that have been condemned internationally as human rights violations.

The law states that an individual seeking a gender change should “have no reproductive glands, or their functions should be permanently lost.” This is known as the sterility requirement.

The other rule, or the appearance requirement, states that individuals seeking gender changes should have “a body featuring genital organs resembling those of the gender sought in the change.”

To meet the sterility requirement, individuals must have their ovaries or testes surgically removed, while the appearance requirement entails operations to remove the penis, in principle.

The 15 justices ruled that the sterility requirement was unconstitutional.

But the top court did not make a decision regarding the appearance requirement. It sent the case back to a high court on grounds that the lower court had not examined this requirement.

The plaintiff in the case was born male but has been living as a female, and asked a family court to allow a gender change without the surgery to remove the reproductive organs.

The plaintiff argued that she met the sterilization requirement because her reproductive capability diminished over the years of hormone administration, even without surgery.

Both the family court and a higher court ruled that she did not meet the sterility requirement and dismissed the case. Both courts did not consider the appearance requirement.

The plaintiff claimed that enforcing surgery violates Article 13 of the Constitution, which stipulates an individual’s right to pursue happiness, and filed a special appeal to the Supreme Court.

In 2019, in a separate case involving a different transgender person with similar claims, the Supreme Court’s Second Petty Bench consisting of four justices ruled that the sterility requirement does not violate the Constitution.

However, the top court’s Grand Bench, consisting of all 15 justices, reviewed the case in light of changes in social conditions.

Related News