Photo/Illutration A transgender man in his 30s from Sapporo applied to change his legal gender earlier this year without undergoing any body-altering medical procedures. (Takayuki Kakuno)

In a landmark decision, the Sapporo Family Court ruled that a requirement mandating transgender individuals to alter the appearance of their genitals to legally change their gender is unconstitutional and invalid.

The ruling, issued on Sept. 19, marks the first time a Japanese court has declared the so-called "appearance requirement" to be in violation of the Constitution.

The decision builds on a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the requirement for sterilization for legal gender recognition. That ruling paved the way for legal gender changes without surgery to remove ovaries or testicles.

This latest decision further dismantles the legal and medical hurdles facing transgender individuals in Japan.

It specifically challenges the constitutionality of requiring hormone treatments intended to shrink the penis or enlarge the clitoris to meet genital appearance standards—a condition previously seen as necessary for legal gender changes.

The case was brought by a transgender man in his 30s from Sapporo who applied to change his legal gender earlier this year without undergoing body-altering medical procedures.

While he met three of the law's remaining four requirements, he contested the appearance requirement as unconstitutional.

In its ruling, the court stated that the right to be treated in accordance with one’s gender identity is a “significant legal interest.”

It noted that forcing individuals to undergo surgery or hormone therapy to conform to a certain appearance infringes upon Article 13 of the Constitution, which is interpreted to guarantee freedom from invasive physical interventions.

The court also dismissed the government's argument that the requirements are necessary to avoid conflicts in gender-segregated public spaces, such as communal baths.

It noted that many transgender individuals already avoid such facilities, and that rules governing their use can be set by each facility individually, without the need to impose surgery or hormone therapy.

Furthermore, the ruling highlighted that recent medical developments acknowledge gender identity does not always require physical treatment, undermining any scientific basis for imposing appearance-related requirements.

Although the decision does not carry binding legal force over other courts, it is expected to influence similar cases and fuel discussions on revising the current legal framework surrounding gender identity in Japan.

Since family court rulings on gender recognition do not involve opposing parties, this decision will take effect without appeal.

Related News