Japan’s Supreme Court has ruled that a law requiring transgender people to have their reproductive organs removed in order to officially change their gender is unconstitutional.
Imagine cutting off your genitals just to change a letter on some form for a bureaucracy. That was barbaric of them
deleted by creator
Wait what? BBC only just reported this too even though it happened last week. But they’re different articles with different authors. Weird.
That was a different case. From the article you linked:
The ruling is the first of its kind in Japan, and comes as the Supreme Court considers a separate case about the same issue.
This is said “separate case.”
Oh, right, that makes sense. Thanks!
I was wondering that myself, glad you got an answer before I asked!
And I’m glad my brain fog helped someone out! It’s almost always the opposite 😅
This is the best summary I could come up with:
TOKYO (AP) — Japan’s Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a law requiring transgender people to have their reproductive organs removed in order to officially change their gender is unconstitutional.
The decision by the top court’s 15-judge Grand Bench was its first on the constitutionality of Japan’s 2003 law requiring the removal of reproductive organs for a state-recognized gender change, a practice long criticized by international rights and medical groups.
The plaintiff, who is only identified as a resident in western Japan, originally filed the request in 2000, saying the surgery requirement forces a huge burden economically and physically and that it violates the constitution’s equal rights protections.
Surgery to remove reproductive organs is not required in most of some 50 European and central Asian countries that have laws allowing people to change their gender on official documents, the Shizuoka ruling said.
In 2019, the Supreme Court in another case filed by a transgender male seeking a gender registration change without the required sexual organ removal and sterilization surgery found the ongoing law constitutional.
In that ruling, the top court said the law was constitutional because it was meant to reduce confusion in families and society, though it acknowledged that it restricts freedom and could become out of step with changing social values and should be reviewed later.
The original article contains 705 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
