Japan's Supreme Court declares sterilization surgeries for transgender citizens unconstitutional

Oct. 25 (UPI) -- Japan's Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a two-decade-old law that required transgender citizens to undergo sterilization surgery to change the gender they were assigned at birth.

All 15 justices on the Grand Bench concurred Wednesday, ruling that a major clause in the 2003 law, which mandates a surgical procedure to receive a legal change of gender on government documents, was unconstitutional.

The court ruled that demanding surgery as a condition for legal gender change was "highly invasive" and "too restrictive" -- infringing the right to pursue happiness as guaranteed under Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution.

In an explanation of the ruling, the justices emphasized the difficult choice faced by individuals who experience gender dysphoria, a condition characterized by emotional distress due to the discrepancy between one's true sense of gender and the one assigned to them at birth.

The unanimous decision overturned a 2019 ruling by the same court that upheld the controversial law, which imposed five conditions on those seeking a gender status change through the civil court system.

The non-negotiable prerequisites included a diagnosis of gender dysphoria by at least two physicians, that the person seeking the gender change must be at least 18 years old, unmarried, have no dependent children, possess no functioning reproductive system, and exhibit genitals that resemble those of the opposite sex.

This time around, the justices declared the law unconstitutional but put off a final decision until a lower court could reevaluate the provision that requires additional surgery to remove ovaries or testicles to ensure the physical appearance of a person's genitals aligned with a desired gender.

The court also cited major advances in gender-related medical care and psychological analysis since the law was first enacted in 2003.

The case was brought by an anonymous transgender woman who sought to change her legal gender without the surgery, but couldn't do so because of the restrictive law, and therefore remains a male in legal documents.

The lawsuit argued that the plaintiff's capacity to reproduce had been negatively impacted by years of hormone therapy and further contended that the law infringed upon her rights by creating an excessive financial burden, thereby hindering the Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

During the 20 years that the law was in effect, nearly 12,000 Japanese citizens formally altered their gender on the family registry, indicating their compliance with the stringent requirements.