Gender change requirements on family register First argument at the Supreme Court Unusual "hearing" the day before

The Supreme Court argued for the first time in a petition that challenges whether a person with gender identity disorder must undergo surgery to disable fertility to change their gender on the family register, and the lawyers for the parties argued that the requirement violates the Constitution and violates the Constitution.
Prior to this, on the 26th, it was revealed that an unusual procedure had been conducted in the Supreme Court in which the parties themselves expressed their opinions.

The Special Cases Law, which stipulates the gender of people with gender identity disorder on the family register, allows a change of gender only if multiple requirements are met, such as the absence of reproductive function.

Regarding this requirement, the party who is male in the family register and leads a social life as a woman filed a petition with the family court to allow gender change without surgery, saying that "forced surgery is unconstitutional", but the family court and the high court did not approve it.

The Supreme Court argued the petition for the first time in a Grand Chamber of Justice on May 27, where all 15 judges were heard, and only lawyers appeared in court, with the parties themselves not present.

The lawyer said, "Reproductive capacity has been reduced by years of hormone treatment, and surgery is not necessary to live as a woman, and the surgery carries physical pain, risk of sequelae, and even financial burden."

He then argued that "requiring surgery in exchange for a gender change would cause enormous disadvantage and pain to the complainant, and that the requirements for surgery violate the right to respect gender status."

In addition, the lawyer revealed that a procedure called a "hearing" was held on the 26th to hear the arguments of the parties themselves.

The parties complained directly to the judge about the difficulties and disadvantages of having their gender on the family register not match their social life.

It is highly unusual for the Supreme Court to hold a closed "hearing."

A decision is expected later this year.