Photos and illustrations/Judicial decision regarding “non-marriage requirement” for gender change: It has been revealed that a family court in eastern Japan has ruled in favor of a transgender couple who both requested to change their gender on their family register. The Gender Identity Disorder Special Cases Act includes a “non-married requirement” that requires that a person be unmarried when changing gender, making it extremely unusual for a married person to be allowed to change gender. The plaintiffs are a couple living in eastern Japan who married in 2023: a trans man working part-time (registered as female) and a trans woman working as a civil servant (registered as male). The cases were filed on the same day in May of this year, and the family court heard them together. In a hearing dated the 4th, the family court ruled that while the two meet the requirements of the Special Cases Act – that they are both over 18 (age requirement), have no minor children (childless requirement), and have genitals that resemble the gender they are changing to (appearance requirement) – they “lack the requirements to be non-married.” However, in light of the Supreme Court decision of March 2020, the report pointed out that the premise for establishing the non-marriage requirement was to take into consideration the fact that changing the gender of one spouse in a marriage could result in a “same-sex marriage,” which could cause confusion in the current “marriage order,” which only recognizes heterosexual marriage. The court then concluded that in the case of two people, if a gender change ruling is made at the same time, there is no possibility of a same-sex marriage occurring, and that it is appropriate to allow the change even if the non-marriage requirements are not met. Because there are no opposing parties in a family court ruling on gender change, as there are in a civil trial, the decision to approve the gender change will be final. It does not have the power to bind other courts, but it could lead to similar claims. (Nikaido Yuki) Expert: “We didn’t force an unnecessary divorce…” There have been a series of court decisions pointing out the unconstitutionality of the requirements for gender change under the Gender Identity Disorder Special Cases Act. In October 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the sterility requirement, which required a loss of reproductive ability, was unconstitutional and invalid. In July of this year, the Hiroshima High Court ruled regarding the appearance requirement that “if surgery is required, there is a possibility that it may be unconstitutional.” This time, the focus was on the non-marriage requirement. One of the couple wants to change their gender… (Paid version below, 556 characters remaining) Asahi Shimbun, September 6, 2024, 6:00 a.m.
>>1 If we are to introduce same-sex marriage, gender equality, and separate surnames in Japan, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, wouldn’t it be okay to classify all marriages that do not produce children (without the intention of producing children) as partnerships? We should abolish all spousal deductions and preferential treatment for spouses in social security, and instead provide deductions and preferential treatment according to the number of children. Spouses do not need legal inheritance rights either. Only direct blood relatives (children and parents) should have legal inheritance rights and basic deductions for inheritance tax. In terms of gender equality, men and women are each independent beings, and this will solve a wide range of problems, from separate surnames for married couples to same-sex marriage and the issue of declining birthrates.
To be honest, this is just decadence. Eventually they will all be destroyed by fire from heaven, just like Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament. In the Ramayana it is also said to be Indra’s arrow.
I’m not against same-sex marriage, so I think the law should be changed. But I thought that making such a decision under the current law was too considerate to LGBTQ people… But then I found out that they both changed their family registers at the same time. That’s an eye-opener.
Comments