in-re-gender-handling-change-case.md

In re Gender Handling Change Case

2021 (FAMILY) No. 335 In re Gender Handling Change Case Unofficial Translation by apple502j Original scan in Japanese from: https://www.call4.jp/file/pdf/202310/bd7b673e2a59f2a32365ec4fae4b0ddd.pdf

DECISION

Family Registry Located At¹ REDACTED Address REDACTED

Applicant SUZUKI Gen (Attorney names)

Main Text

1. The gender handling of Applicant shall be changed from FEMALE to MALE.
2. All fees shall be paid by Applicant.

Reason

Claims

Same as Main Text, Paragraph 1

Summary of the Case

This is a case of Applicant, a biological female² but psyichologically male, seeking to change the gender handling from female to male³ pursuant to Gender Identity Disorder Act of 2003⁴ ("the Act"), while lacking the requirement of Article 3, Paragraph 1, Clause 4 of the Act (that is, the person "lacks gonads or lacks permanently the functionality of gonads"; "the Provision"), because he has not undergone hysterectomy, nevertheless contending that, the Provision, in requiring those seeking gender handling change to undergo gonadectomy against their will, violates the right of people with GID⁵ to have their gender identities respected, to be free from bodily intrusion, and to maintain and establish a family under Article 13 of the Constitution⁶, and the right to equality under Article 14, Paragraph 1 in that it discriminates against people with GID whose gender identity is inconsistent with the biological sex in an irrational manner⁷, and thus is unconstitutional and void.

Opinion of the Court

GID Act Provisions on People with GID and Gender Handling Change

The Act defines "people with GID" as "a person whose sex is biologically apparent⁸ but has a persistent and firm psyicological belief that such person is of another sex, intends to adapt to the other sex both physically and socially, and has concurring diagnoses of two or more doctors with knowledge and experience necessary to make accurate diagnosis, based on generally recognized medical standards". (Article 2)

The Act defines six requirements for the gender handling change to be approved, that is, they must 1) be diagnosed by two or more doctors that the person has GID; 2) be age 20 or older⁹, 3) be currently unmarried¹⁰, 4) have no minor children, 5) "lack gonads or lack permanently the functionality of gonads" (the Provision), and 6) have a pubic area whose appearance is similar to that of the other sex's genitals.

As to the effect of the decision¹¹ approving gender handling change, the applicant is considered, in interpreting Civil Code and other laws, to be of the other sex, but that decision does not affect one's rights and duties retroactively. The court requests that the family register be amended and a new family registry be created for the person¹² if there are other persons recorded.

Underlying Facts

The evidence and the proceeding's record¹³ show that:

1. Applicant was born on REDACTED, as a biological female, and is registered as such.
2. Applicant has started to feel incongruity with his being female around the time he was in junior high school, and that sense has grew stronger after graduating high school¹⁴. While undergoing emotional conflict, he married to a man in August 2003 before the enactment of the Act, but has divorced in March 2015, and changed his name to the current one that April. He has, since May 12th of the same year, regularly attended REDACTED, and with the approval of REDACTED, started hormone therapy by means of androgen administration on October 23rd. He received mastectomy on March 29th, 2016, at REDACTED.
3. Applicant, through this process, as noted in July 2nd, 2021 diagnosis, was diagnosed as GID by REDACTED in REDACTED and REDACTED in REDACTED. This diagnosis considers the family environment, personal history, social adaptation as the biological sex, whether he has a persistent and firm belief that he is male, and that he does not seek gender handling change for reasons other than GID. It additionally notes that, as a result of the hormone therapy, body hair increased, the amount and strength of muscles increased, fat distribution became masculine, and the voice became deeper; that no serious side effects occured, that his life as the identifying gender became easier and that his social adaptation improved; and that after receiving mastectomy at REDACTED, it became impossible to see the difference between his breast appearance and that of a biological male's¹⁵, and his social adaptation improved¹⁶, decreasing physiological stress. As to "physical and social adaptation as the other sex", at REDACTED, it notes that "menstruation has stopped, voice became deeper. Breast enlargement is not observed, muscles and body hair increased, and his body is overall masculine in terms of appearance", and "a small penis was observed, thus the genitals are similar to that of biological males; the state of the part can be recognized as male genitals, and is part of the body." The diagnosis notes that "social adaptation as a male is exceptionally satisfactory."
4. Applicant filed this application on October 4th, 2021, in Shizuoka Family Court, Hamamatsu Division.

Applicability of Other Provisions

1. As stated above, Applicant was diagnosed by two or more doctors as GID, and the diagnosis was based on procedures documented in GID Diagnosis and Treatment Guideline, therefore the diagnosis meets the requirement under Article 3, Paragraph 2 and the MHLW Order¹⁷. There is no cause to believe the accuracy of this diagnosis. Therefore, Applicant satisfies the requirement under Article 2 and 3, Paragraph 2.
2. As stated above, Applicant was born on REDACTED, so satisfies the requirement under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Clause 1, relating to age.
3. As stated above, Applicant satisfies the requirement under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Clause 2, relating to not being married.
4. As stated above, Applicant satisfies the requirement under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Clause 3, relating to not having a minor child.
5. As stated above, Applicant satisfies the requirmenet under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Clause 5, relating to genital appearances.

Applicability of the Provision

The Provision requires, as a requirement for the decision of gender handling change, that applicant "lack gonads or lack permanently the functionality of gonads". Therefore, to have the change approved, applicant must, as gonadectomy, 1) under go orchiectomy and penectomy if applicant is a biological male seeking gender change to female (MTF), and 2) undergo hysterectomy, etc¹⁸ if applicant is a biological female seeking gender change to male (FTM).

As stated above, in this case Applicant has not received gonadectomy, so does not satisfy the requirement under the Provision.

Constitutionality of the Provision

As stated above, Applicant having satisfied every requirement for gender handling change other than the Provision, he nonetheless claims that the change should be approved because the Provision violates Article 13 and 14 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and void. For this reason, we discuss the constitutionality of the Provision.

Framework

As to the constitutionality of the Provision, SCOJ 2018 (KU) No. 269, decided January 23rd, 2019, by the Second Petty Bench¹⁹ (Shumin²⁰) No. 261, Pg. 1, "2019 SCOJ Decision") notes: (Translator note: summary)

The Provision means that people with GID seeking gender handling change must, in general, receive gonadectomy. While this does not make sterilization compulsory for everyone with GID, some may against their will receive it just to receive the gender handling change, and we cannot deny that this has the aspect of restricting freedom against unwanted bodily intrusion. However, the Provision can be interpreted to take into account potential procreation by applicants that cause confusion by the society²¹ and the need to avoid drastic changes after years of gender distinction based on biological sex. Whether this measure is necessary or proper can change based on changes in social circumstances regarding handling of one's gender according to their gender identity, or the family system, and the constitutionality of such provisions must be held to neverending consideration. However, considering as a whole the purpose of the Provision, the manner of the restriction, and the current social circumstances, the Provision is, at this present moment, not in violation of Article 13 or 14.

As the 2019 SCOJ Decision describes, it is appropriate to follow that framework and decide whether the Provision violates Article 13 or 14 of the Constitution by balancing as a whole and at this present time (that is, the issuance of this decision) the purpose of the Provision, the manner of the restriction it imposes, and the current social circumstances.

Purpose of the Provision, Nature of Restricted Rights, and Manner of Restriction

The Provision's purpose is to ensure societal confusion do not occur by potential procreation by applicants and to respect the need to avoid drastic changes after years of gender distinction based on biological sex. This purpose was rational to some extent based on the social circumstances at the time of the enactment.

That said, gonadectomy is in itself a serious intrusion into human bodies, causes significant and irreversible effect that is loss of fertility, and, may cause as complications, blood clots or intestinal blockage for hysterectomy, as well as bleeding and drug side effects common to all surgeries. This may in some cases put one's life and health at jeopardy, and it comes with restrictions on liberty before and after the surgery. Whether to receive such surgeries should generally be a voluntary choice of such persons, and this liberty is protected under Article 13 of the Constitution, as the freedom from bodily intrusion against their will.

We then consider whether the restrictions imposed by the Provision are necessary and rational, given the purpose of the Provision and the nature of constitutional rights it restricts.

The Act allows people with GID that meet certain requirements to voluntarily have their legal gender handling changed. This law is not intending to coerce them into receiving gonadectomy, nor does it mandate them to receive gonadectomy against their will.

However, while those whose gender handling changes were approved uunder the Act may marry according to their new gender²², be recorded as such gender on family register, and be marked as such on legal documents, resolving social inconveniences, those diagnosed as GID yet unable to receive gender handling changes may feel pain and anxiety in daily life, including schools²³ and work, or may feel as their personal existence is being denied. It is reported that suicidality is not rare in those suffering from such distress.

The genders of male and female²⁴, treated as a personal attribute in social life or human relationship, form inseparable parts of personal existence. For those with GID, the ability to receive gender handling change under the Act is an important, perhaps compelling, legal interest. They, however, have no option but to receive the surgeries in order to resolve inconvenience in social life and preserve own personal existence, even if they do not seek such surgeries.

This follows that, the Provision restricts the freedom from unwanted bodily intrusion to have their gender handling changes approved, and the manner and extent of the restriction of this right arising from the Provision is, by its nature, significant.

As to the issues arising from parenthood and the like, and the need to mitigate the societal confusion, given that a person with GID is defined as "a person whose sex is biologically apparent but has a persistent and firm psyicological belief that such person is of another sex, intends to adapt to the other sex both physically and socially", procreation using reproductive functions associated with one's former sex after gender handling change would in itself be a rare occurance. The confusion, if any, would be somewhat limited.

Sure, if someone were to report birth of a child as a mother when he is registered as male in the family registry after the change, or report birth as a father after gender handling change to female, it is possible that some confusion in the society may follow on matters of family relationship²⁵.

However, after the gender handling change, on the family register a person's relationship to parents is amended, say, from "daughter" to "son"; if a person, biologically female, were to have gender handling change to male approved, then give birth to a child, then the person's amended gender is not recorded on the parental relationship section of the child. Since the changes to gender handling are not retroactive, and the explanation for a person initially recorded to be male or female in terms of parental relationship to be recorded as the other gender is available on the family registry, while it is plausible that family registry's gender records may create some societal confusion²⁶, it is practically limited, and to what extent the measures to mitigate such issues are necessary, as well as the methods of mitigation, may vary depending on changes on the society's view and child welfare viewpoints. (As to the methods for mitigating such societal confusion, we do not find it impossible that legislations on family registry or birth report or administrative operations may be changed separately from gender handling change requirements.²⁷)

Given the progress of reproductive healthcare in recent years, it is possible that regardless of the Provision children could be born using reproductive functions associated with the assigned sex, for example when a child is born after someone changes her gender handling to female using her cryopreserved semen. There already exists a precedent where a child born using assisted reproductive technology with cryopreserved semen filed a filiation suit against their parent who changed her gender handling to female under the Act, to which a court granted filiation for children born before the approval of gender handling change.²⁸

Given those points, the problems relating to parental relationship and societal confusion arising from parenthood, one of the legislative intent considered during the Provision's enactment, are limited, and the need to mitigate those is not particularly strong. This raises the question that, the manner of restrictions on human rights, that is, freedom from unwanted bodily intrusion, imposed by the Provision, in forcing people with GID to receive surgery to have their gender handling changes approved, is beyond what is necessary and rational.

Considering whether, and to what extent, the Provision is necessary and rational from the medical viewpoint, we find that for diagnosis and treatment of GID, "GID Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines" governs; that at the time of the enactment of the Act, the Second Revision of the Guidelines noted the standard of three-step approach, that is, psycological treatment, hormone therapy and mastectomy, and finally, gender reassignment surgery; and that the third step would only be taken if strong dysphoria persists even after the second step.

However, the Guidelines were revised in January 2006. Three-step approach was abandoned, and the Third Revision and following guidelines gave patients the choice on which treatment to receive, and in what order. Medically, while gender reassignment surgeries were recognized as the last step of GID treatment at the time of the enactment of the Actl, after the 2006 revision, it has been just one of the options, and has not been required as part of treatment. Seventeen years having passed since the revision, we can say that the method of treatment under the new Guidelines are now medically well-established, and no evidence suggests that the medical world has the practice of giving fivolous GID diagnosis.

Under these circumstances, the necessity and rationale of the Provision, in requiring people with GID to undergo surgeries not medically necessary in order to receive approval for gender handling changes, has significantly beenw weakened from the medical standpoint compared to when it was enacted.

Relaxing the requirements for gender handling changes, we find, would not cause problems such as facile applications for gender handling changes; even if such concerns do exist, the requirement of GID diagnosis and other requirements could be checked more strictly during the proceedings.²⁹

For these reasons, while we recognize the legislative purpose of preventing societal confusion arising from parenthood issues, the Provision, in requiring people with GID to receive gonadectomy before gender handling changes, undoubtedly raises a question of whether it lacks necessity or rationales to achieve its goal, given the limited possibility of societal issues described above as well as medical views.

Current Social Circumstances

As noted above, one of the purposes of the Provision is to avoid drastic changes after years of gender distinction based on biological sex. Whether such measures are necessary, however, changes along with the social changes.

The Act notes that the procedures for gender handling changes should, based on the circumstances following enactment, be reconsidered as necessary, considering the circumstances surrounding people with GID and other parties. 2019 SCOJ Decision also explains that the necessity of the measures to support the legislative goal of the Provision, and the rationality of the method, can change based on changes in social circumstances regarding handling of one's gender according to their gender identity, or the family system, and that the constitutionality of such statutes is subject to neverending consideration.

Nineteen years have passed since the enactment of the Act. Judiciary Statistics note more than ten thousand people were granted gender handling changes, and the gender handling changes have been a part of the society's institutions.

As concurring opinion of the 2019 SCOJ Decision points out, in recent years efforts to allow people with GID to be treated under their gender identities have progressed in schools, enterprises, and many other fields of the society, and such proggress follows movements both foreign and domestic, continuing to this day.

Regading international trends since the enactment of the Act, prior to 2019 SCOJ Decision, on May 30th, 2014, World Health Organization and other UN organizations issued an interagency statement titled "Eliminating forced, coercive, and otherwise involuntary sterilizattion", in which it noted opposition to involuntary sterilization requirements for legal gender changes cciting irreversibility, the right to self-determination, and human dignity, and the High Commissioner on Human Rights, in the May 4th, 2015 report, recommended "the issuance of legal certificates reflecting one's identifying gender, removing prerequisites such as sterilization, forced treatment, or divorce, that violates human rights".

The evidence suggest that, 40 countries, including Germany, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Norway, and Greece, of the 50 Europe/Central Asia nations, do not require sterilization like the Provision; this trend does not appear to be a short one, instead a significant movement in today's international society.

In terms of domestic trends, MEXT³⁰, on April 30th, 2015, released "Accomodations for Students with GID", which notes that students with GID may require specific assistance in schools, and that schools should provide individualized accomodations that respect students' feelings and educators should deepen their understanding of such persons, without prejudice.³¹. Such efforts in school education have continued to this day.

On September 23rd, 2020, Science Council of Japan (Committee on Law, Subcomittee on Protection of LGBTI Rights in Society and Education) has released a suggestion for "Legislative Measures to Respect Transgender People's Dignity", which calls for the abolition of the sterilization requirement. On May 21st, 2021, the GID Society has rekeased a statement seeking, inter alia, the abolition of the surgery requirement.

Following those trends, in June 2023, "An Act relating to Promotion of Citizens' Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Diversity" (2023 Act No. 68) was enacted and came into force.³² Article 1 reads, "This Act, recognizing citizens' inadequate understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity diversity, seeks to establish society that respects the diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity, by establishing a basic policy on measures to promote such understanding, clarifying the role of national and local governments, and by establishing a basic plan and other necessary plans, thereby fostering minds that accept such diversity." The Act defines basic policies and the role of the national and local governments. It is expected that this Act will lead efforts to promote citizens' understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity diversity.

Given the domestic and international social trends, as well as nineteen years of development after the enactment of the Act, we find that at this present moment in Japan, to achieve society that respects diversity of gender identities of people with GID, school education programs have continued and it has become necessary for national and local governments to promote citizens' understanding under law.

Given this social circumstance, regarding drastic changes after the enactment of the Act that allows people with GID to amend the gender handling, even if there might have existed some necessity or rationality in providing some consideration³³ for some time, the progress in time and changes in social circumstances means that, the extent of drastic changes have moderated; the present need for such considerations is considerably less than what was necessary at the time the Act was enacted.

It should be also noted that, we acknowledge the well-known fact that, there exists an ongoing debate about use of public restrooms or spas by people with GID; the existence of such present debates however, does not bar the recognition of changes in social circumstances for the sole purpose of determining whether surgery requirement should be kept for gender handling changes.³⁴ Even if such requirements became legally unnecessary, we believe that the debate should continue with respect to potentially problematic cases and how to handle them, harmonizing the need to respect personal interests of people with GID and the public's interest.

Conclusion

As noted above, the nature of the human rights of people with GID restricted by the Provision, and the extent and manner of the restriction, is significant. Even if we accept the legislative purpose of the Provision, that is, problems with regard to parental relations could arise, the possibility and the extent of such issues caused by the lack of the Provision is limited, and the uniform restriction on freedom from unwanted bodily intrusion cannot be justified as necessary or rational. Moreover, even if we accept the legislative purpose regarding the need to mitigate drastic changes in society, we find that social circumstances have been progressing both domestically and internationally since the enactment of the Act and to this day, and that there exists significantly lesser need to mitigate such concerns. For these reasons, the imposition of such restrictions under the Provision, for the purpose of achieving its goals, lacks the necessity or rationality.

Constitutionality

Therefore, without consideration of the additional arguments³⁵, the court finds that the Provision violates Article 13 of the Constitution and is unconstitutional and void.

Conclusion with regard to Judgment

For these reasons, Applicant having satisfied all requirements for the gender handling change, the court HEREBY ADJUDGES as noted in the Main Text.³⁶

Dated this October 11th, 2023

Shizuoka Family Court, Hamamatsu Division

(Three-judge panel; names of judges ³⁷)

Footnotes (by Translator Apple)

Footnotes

1. Honseki (本籍); Address registered at Japanese family registries. This can be changed to any location, but for many people, this is where your grand-grand-grand... parent was born. Since one family shares a family registry in many cases, it's very possible that the address registered is far away from where you were born or currently reside. ↩

2. As writte in the decision. This is how the Japanese government refers to trans people in general. ↩

3. Read: "gender marker change". ↩

4. Also known as "Act 111". Japanese name: 性同一性障害者の性別の取扱いの特例に関する法律。 ↩

5. Read: "trans people". This is the legal term (the word "transgender" is not used in any law from what I believe.) ↩

6. The article protects generally the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This article is judicially enforceable, and the Pursuit of Happniess Clause is used to recognize rights not written in the text but is nonetheless fundamental. U.S. readers might be familiar with the concept of substantive due process; this is basically the same. ↩

7. Japanese equality doctrine does not have tiered scrutiny/strict scrutiny. Rational basis governs, and those asserting the challege bears the burden of proof. ↩

8. Intersex people can declare the previous gender marker erroneous under Family Register Act. ↩

9. Amended in 2022 to be 18, with the lowering of the age of majority. ↩

10. Japan does not recognize same-sex relationships at the national level yet. ↩

11. The ruling uses "審判", which means a decision for nonjudicial proceedings. A decision following an oral argument in a civil or criminal case is "判決". A summary order is a "決定". ↩

12. Family registries are for the entire family, but one can split and make one's own. However, anyone can request the family registry of their relatives for any reason. The registry includes a section indicating that the person was subjected to Act 111 proceeding, which basically outs that person. Also, a family registry does not technically have a section on sex; it instead records whether someone is a son or a daughter of parents. ↩

13. Means oral argument. In a normal civil case, any statement made in the courtroom is admissible insofar as the judge(s) see them as satisfactory. ↩

14. This is usually 18 years old. ↩

15. Gynecomastia is a somewhat common condition, but hey, judges don't go to meds school. ↩

16. "Passing", in English term. ↩

17. Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare is responsible for regulating medicine. The Act itself however, is administered by the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary. ↩

18. Cannot be bothered to look up the English name of various surgeries. ↩

19. A petty bench of the Supreme Court consists of 5 justices, and the members do not change until replacement. However, the Second Petty Bench at the time included the Chief Justice, who does not participate in cases other than those heard en banc. Therefore, this case was decided by 4-justice bench, in a 決定. ↩

20. Shumin is the official Supreme Court reporter for civil cases of lower importance, and is only available at subscription databases or law school libraries. Minshu, on the other hand, reports important precedents set by the Court, and can be read in many public libraries. Regardless of the reporter, however, most Supreme Court decision, including this, are available as PDF online on the Court website. ↩

21. At the time of the enactment, people with any children - regardless of the children's age - were prohibited from changing gender marker. After 2008 amendment, it is theoretically possible that a person may have a female "father" or a male "mother", as "father" and "mother" are determined at the time the person is born. ↩

22. If you are heterosexual, that is. ↩

23. Given the unchallenged age requirement, the only realistic reading of the word "school" is university or graduate school. ↩

24. Nonbinary genders are not recognized at all in most legal settings. ↩

25. As in family law, not personal relationship. ↩

26. A background info here may be necessary to understand why they believe this is a big deal. Japan's family registry system is a unique feature. It dates back to ancient times, and is basically a family tree of all Japanese citizens (foreign nationals are not recorded). It is the equivalent of a birth certificate, except that each is chained together. Family registry, however, is not the database the government uses for many day-to-day operations; a separate database, called 住民基本台帳, collects information practically necessary for administrative matters (such as actual household members or pension enrollment) for all residents (including noncitizens) at the place of their residence. Family registry records marriage, birth, adoption, and other family law matters. It is useful for checking who will inhreit assets, whether someone is legally considered to be a relative, etc. 住民基本台帳 is a dictionary; family registry is a tree. And since the current design has placed many requirements for the tree structure, changing one may cause unintended consequences. And yes, precedents do seem to allow administrative burden as a valid reason to restrict constitutional rights. (See also that one case where the court ruled demonstration on the squares in front of a city hall can be banned based on its content because partisan protests held in public property may make the city look impartial. Decided 2023-02-21, SCOJ Third Petty Bench.) ↩

27. Perhaps legalization of same-sex marriage may eventually lead to proper reform on family registry. Conservatives hate abolishing this "Japan-only" stuff, and they have the votes to do so. ↩

28. Tokyo High Court, August 19th, 2022, case 2022-NE-1585. Readers might be confused how exactly this change was approved, given the "no minor children" requirement. Here is the statement of facts from that case: "Appellant (biological mother) gave birth to Appellant A. Family registry records indicate A has no father. Appellant Mother and Appellee married at REDACTED and divorced at REDACTED. (This divorce is a procedural one to allow Appellee to change gender marker to female.) After divorce, Appellee received approval to change her gender handling to female. Appellant Mother then gave birth to B, whose father is also not recorded on the family registry." "During the time Appellant Mother and Appellee started to engage in relationship, Appellee started cryopreservation of her semen, prepared to begin HRT, and changed her name. During engagement, Appellant Mother gave birth to A using Appellee's cryopreserved semen. A's father is unrecorded. Appellant Mother and Appellee then married, in part because single mothers are seen in a hostile manner by the community. However, the two divorced, because marriage bars Appellee from changing her gender handling. Appellee changed her gender handling under the Act, hiding to the family court A's birth. Then Appellant Mother gave birth to B using Appellee's cryopreserved semen. B's father, too, is not recorded on the family registry." In short: an unmarried woman gives birth to child A using a trans woman's semen, the trans woman changes her gender without disclosing she has children, then the (now-unmarried) woman gives birth to child B. A court ruled that the trans woman can become the father of A but not B. ↩

29. That is, if one gatekeeping method does not work, we should add another one. Remember, this is a country of what-ifs. ↩

30. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology administers public schools. ↩

31. This guideline has no legal power; Japan lacks enforceable civil rights law outside employment (unlike US's Title IX). ↩

32. Official name: "性的指向及びジェンダーアイデンティティの多様性に関する国民の理解の増進に関する法律". This, like many other "civil rights laws", are not legally enforceable, and simply state policies and recommendations for governmental and nongovernmental entities. This act, in particular, was criticized for its negative consequences by LGBTQ+ rights activists; some conservative politicians, supporting this bill, argued that it would preempt local governments' policies that are more progressive than the national one. The law contains provisions that, among other things, recommends schools to provide LGBTQ+ education "in coordination with families" and that all measures under this law should be enacted to "ensure all citizens feel safe in their life" (note the word "feel", requiring subjective and not objective security). ↩

33. To cisgender people. ↩

34. This is a big deal - and perhaps the single most important part of this decision. This isn't a decision about the marriage requirement or "no minor child" requirement; the surgery requirement - at least from the public's view - is intermingled with the bathroom and spa debate. (Public spas and hot springs are very common in this country; and the news of sexual abuse perpetrated by men in (gender-neutral) accessible bathrooms don't help either.) ↩

35. The applicant also raised Article 14 equality issue. The court did not rule on this issue, because it was redundant in light of Article 13 conclusion. ↩

36. This ruling is not appealable, as Applicant won and the government cannot intervene. ↩

37. It is extremely rare for family courts to convene three-judge panels. ↩