The 2003 law requiring the removal of sex organs to obtain a state-recognised gender change has long been criticised by international rights and medical groups as discriminatory as well as invasive and risky for health.<\/p>\n
On Wednesday, the court\u2019s 15-judge \u201cgrand bench\u201d agreed, ruling against the \u201ccruel choice\u201d between \u201cembracing the sterilisation surgery that requires an intense level of bodily invasion\u201d and \u201crelinquishing important legal benefits of being treated according to their gender identity\u201d.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Lawyers Kazuyuki Minami, left, and Masafumi Yoshida hold signs that read \u201cUnconstitutional\u201d, right, and \u201cBack (to High Court)\u201d during a press conference following the ruling on Wednesday.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>AP<\/cite><\/p>\n However, the decision was not a full legal victory for those wishing to change gender, as the Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court to deliberate the requirement for gender-affirmation surgery.<\/p>\n Several other conditions for official recognition of changed gender still remain, including being unmarried, not having children and being diagnosed with gender dysphoria.<\/p>\n Amnesty International called the ruling a \u201clandmark decision for transgender rights in Japan\u201d, adding that it was a further \u201cencouraging sign that countries in the region are re-evaluating discriminatory practices or laws affecting LGBTI people\u201d.<\/p>\n Hong Kong this week ruled in favour of same-sex couples\u2019 equal inheritance rights, while in May, Taiwan passed a bill that granted same-sex partners the right to jointly adopt a child neither of them are related to, taking one of the final steps towards achieving full marriage equality.<\/p>\n However, Boram Jang, Amnesty\u2019s East Asia researcher, said that while the ruling was an important step forward, the fight for LGBT rights in Japan remained an uphill battle.<\/p>\n \u2018Individual\u2019s self-determination\u2019<\/p>\n \u201cAmnesty International continues to call on the Japanese authorities to ensure legal gender recognition is not contingent on psychiatric diagnosis, medical treatment such as gender-affirming surgery or other abusive or discriminatory requirements such as being unmarried or not having children,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt must be a quick, accessible and transparent administrative process based on an individual\u2019s self-determination.\u201d<\/p>\n Wednesday\u2019s case was triggered by a transgender woman who wanted to challenge a refusal to list her as female without surgery.<\/p>\n She filed the case in 2020 after her request for a gender change in her family registry \u2013 to female from assigned male at birth \u2013 was turned down by lower courts.<\/p>\n \u2018Grave human rights violation\u2019<\/p>\n The claimant, identified only as a resident of western Japan in her late forties, has called the forced sterilisation a \u201cgrave human rights violation and unconstitutional\u201d, pointing out that it creates a huge economic and physical burden on individuals.<\/p>\n Kazuyuki Minami, her lawyer, told reporters that it was \u201cextremely rare for the Supreme Court to rule a law unconstitutional\u201d.<\/p>\n But he added that it was \u201csad\u201d that his client \u201cwill have to live tomorrow and beyond with her gender not recognised by the law\u201d as the further review at the lower court would delay the final settlement of the issue.<\/p>\n The decision comes at a time when the rights of the LGBT community are rising in visibility in traditionally conservative Japan, which remains the only G7 member that does not allow same-sex marriage or legal protections, including an effective anti-discrimination law.<\/p>\n In July, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a transgender bureaucrat who sued the government over access to female lavatories at work, and opinion polls have shown growing support for LGBT-friendly laws, especially among the younger generation.<\/p>\n