Japan High Court approves non-surgically confirmed female identification of transgender woman

Japan’s Hiroshima High Court approved on Wednesday the gender change of a transgender woman who did not undergo the legally required gender confirmation surgery.

While the transgender woman was registered as a male on the family registry, she identified herself as a female. She faced legal challenges as Japanese law required individuals to meet certain conditions if they wished to change their gender on the family registry. For example, the Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status for Persons with Gender Identity Disorder previously required individuals to undergo surgery to eliminate reproductive functions and modify genital appearances to ensure the individuals’ appearances aligned with their registered genders.

The court questioned the constitutionality of the mandatory surgery requirement, noting that unconstitutionality may be present if surgery is always necessary for individuals to change their legal gender. The court acknowledged that forcing individuals to either undergo gender confirmation surgery or not to change their legal gender may constitute a violation of the Japanese Constitution. The court also stated that the transgender woman was allowed to change her legal gender to female without undergoing gender confirmation surgery as she had become sufficiently feminine through hormone treatment.

The transgender woman’s lawyer Kazuyuki Minami said that the court’s ruling laid out a framework for determining gender change requirements and that this would impact future rulings in Japanese family courts.

Critics of the decision to eliminate the surgery requirement for gender change expressed strong opposition. The Association to Protect Women’s Space asserted that male genitals do not become complete female genitals through hormone treatment. The association also said that a law should be enforced that disallows individuals with male genitals from using female spaces.

Similarly, the Association to Protect the Gender Identity Disorder Special Law expressed that legal gender change should only be granted if the individual undergoes gender confirmation surgery. The association stated that the ruling may cause confusion in society and adversely affect legal discussions.

Public awareness of sexual minority rights has been growing in Japan, the only G7 country that has not legalized same-sex marriages or civil unions. On October 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of Japan made a landmark ruling in which it held that a law requiring transgender people to be sterilized to legally change their gender was unconstitutional. In June 2023, Japan’s national legislature enforced a law stating that all citizens regardless of gender identity are to be respected as individuals with human rights.

The post Japan High Court approves non-surgically confirmed female identification of transgender woman appeared first on JURIST – News.

ECHR finds Russia custody agreement termination of trans person breached human rights convention

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Tuesday that Russia’s termination of a foster parents’ custody agreement due to the foster parent’s sexual and gender identity violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The court determined that the right to privacy of family life, as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibited Russia from lawfully terminating the custody agreement between the state and applicant Yulia Savinovskikh due to Savinovskikh’s gender status.

Savinovskikh gained custody of two foster children between 2014 and 2016 before Russian authorities requested they be voluntarily returned to the state in 2017. After Savinovskikh refused to surrender the children, the custody agreement was terminated and the children were removed from his care.

The ECHR determined that the termination of the custody and care agreement was primarily due to the applicants’ change of gender and sexual identity and did not arise from any evidence that Savinovskikh was not fit to care for the children nor evidence-backed concerns that the children’s wellbeing would be affected by Savinovskikh’s transition. The court also found that the Russian officials gave insufficient consideration for the interests of those involved, including the children. As the court found a violation of Article 8 of the convention could be established, the majority did not find it necessary to separately determine whether Article 14, related to protection against discrimination, had been violated.

Russia withdrew from the European Convention of Human Rights in September 2022, though the ECHR determined it had the authority to decide this case as the events concerned took place prior to the withdrawal when the state was still obliged to abide by the Articles of the convention.

Russia has been widely condemned for its limited protections of LGBTQ individuals, with a 2024 report by the non-governmental organisation ILGA-Europe ranking Russia as lowest amongst all European states for legislative developments in the area of LGBT rights. Russia’s departure from the convention is one of many recent developments within the state that have decreased the legal protections and social acceptance of LGBT individuals. Earlier this year the state faced harsh criticism internationally after a Russian financial watchdog referred to the LGBT movement as a “terrorist organisation”, only months after the Russian Supreme Court labelled the LGBT movement as “extremist”.

The court ordered Russia to pay €7 500 ($8 120) in damages and €5000 ($5  413) in costs to Savinovskikh. In a partial dissent, Judge  Serghides also found that the children ought to receive compensation as victims of the breach, however, this view was ultimately not reflected in the majority decision.

The post ECHR finds Russia custody agreement termination of trans person breached human rights convention appeared first on JURIST – News.

UK: Christian social worker refused job due to [homophobic] views says he will appeal judgment

An employment tribunal has produced a mixed ruling after Felix Ngole claimed he was discriminated against by a health charity.

Dave Higgens 1 July 2024

A Christian social worker who was rejected for a job after a health charity discovered his views on homosexuality has vowed to appeal after an employment tribunal upheld part of his claim but ruled he was not discriminated against by the failure to employ him.

Felix Ngole, 46, told a hearing in Leeds in April that Touchstone Leeds discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs when they refused him the job as a hospital discharge mental health support worker, based in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, in 2022.

More: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/felix-ngole-christian-sheffield-university-leeds-court-of-appeal-b2571961.html

Guatemala Constitutional Court imposes restrictions on LGBTQ+ Pride Parade

Guatemala Constitutional Court issued a ruling Friday requiring public security authorities to supervise the LGBTQ+ Pride Parade to ensure it conforms to “good customs.” This decision came in response to a legal challenge filed by lawyer Roberto Cano, who claimed the parade contains “immoral, sexual, and depraved scenes contrary to the moral and integral development of children.”

The Court’s ruling, announced in a statement on Friday, granted Cano’s request for a provisional injunction. It directed President Bernardo Arévalo, the Minister of Interior, and public security authorities to implement appropriate surveillance measures.

In line with this decision, the Court exhorted parade organizers and participants to exercise their rights peacefully and in accordance with “good customs,” specifically mentioning concern about the best interests of children. The Human Rights Ombudsman was also instructed to oversee compliance with these measures.

The Parade Organizing Committee swiftly responded to the Court’s ruling, issuing a statement that confirmed the parade would proceed as planned. They denounced the decision as “an attack on the rights of freedom of expression, demonstration, and association of all people, based on hate speech, prejudice, intolerance, and ignorance.” The Committee also expressed concern over the Guatemalan state’s apparent lack of a clear stance in favor of human rights for all individuals, including LGBTIQ+ people, and indicated they were considering legal action against the Court’s decision.

There is tension between the Court’s ruling and international human rights standards. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly, stated that restrictions on peaceful assemblies for the protection of “morals” should be rare. The Committee emphasized that such justifications should not be based on conceptions of morality derived exclusively from a single social, philosophical, or religious tradition, and cannot be imposed in opposition to expressions of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The controversy surrounding the Pride Parade occurs against the backdrop of Guatemala’s complex political and social landscape. President Bernardo Arévalo, who took office earlier this year, had promised the LGBTIQ+ community protection from discriminatory acts and pledged to combat hate speech. However, Guatemala continues to grapple with anti-LGBTIQ+ discourse and a hostile environment for this community. This is evidenced by the increase in hate crimes, with the Observatory for Violent Deaths of Lambda reporting at least 34 such crimes in 2023, a 15% increase from previous years.

The post Guatemala Constitutional Court imposes restrictions on LGBTQ+ Pride Parade appeared first on JURIST – News.

LGBTQ+ at Work – Unveiling the European Parliament’s Archives and Commitments

This new online exhibit explores documents from the European Parliament (EP) between 1987 and 2003 relevant to LGBTQ+ rights. It provides fascinating insights into some of the inner workings of the Parliament, and illustrates the mechanisms citizens have used to make their voices heard at the European level.

More: https://archives.eui.eu/en/audio_visual/exhibitions/28/exhibition_pages/49

Romania: The guidelines for interaction with transgender persons inthe electoral context

More: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6086-romania-the-guidelines-for-interaction-with-transgender-persons-in-the-electoral-context

Canada: An Indigenous Trans Woman in Ontario Won a Six-Year Legal Battle Against a Waxing Salon

The anonymous woman was awarded more than CAD $35,000 in damages.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has awarded an Indigenous transgender woman more than CAD $35,000 (about $25,500) in damages, following her six-year legal battle against a waxing salon owner who discriminated against and publicly humiliated her, as the court determined.

The anonymous complainant, known as A.B. during the proceedings, filed her case in 2018 after she attempted to book a leg waxing service from the salon Mad Wax in Windsor, Ontario, owned by Jason Carruthers. After speaking with an employee who later testified that she did not know what the word “transgender” meant, A.B. received a call back from Carruthers, who assumed that A.B. wanted a Brazilian wax and told her that nobody would offer that service to “someone like you” — referring to her status as a trans woman, per court documents.

More: https://www.them.us/story/canada-waxing-salon-indigenous-trans-woman-lawsuit

US president pardons LGBTQI+ military veterans’ convictions of now-repealed discriminatory laws

The US President Biden on Wednesday pardoned American veterans who were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation or gender identity under a military code for more than 60 years. Biden’s proclamation grants direct clemency to people who had been given court marshal convictions between 1951 and 2013 because of their status in the LQBTQI+ community.

The pardon applies to service members convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s former Article 125.  The presidential proclamation specifies that it is meant to pardon only offenses based on consensual, private conduct between same-sex individuals. Those covered by the pardon can apply to have their convictions erased, upgrade their military discharges, and recover lost pay and benefits. At least 32,837 LGBTQI+ service members between 1980 and 2011 were forced out of the military under the prior “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” laws, according to the US Defense Department. Civil rights advocates say it could be upward of 100 thousand service members who had been affected by discriminatory government practices from 1951-2013. 

President Biden announced in his White House statement, “As Commander in Chief, I am committed to maintaining the finest fighting force in the world. That means making sure that every member of our military is safe and respected. So they can focus on their mission.” The Biden Administration emphasized that this decision is about establishing federal rights, not based on a Supreme Court decision and that it is meant to protect the “dignity, decency, and culture” of the American Armed Forces, which reflects the “values that make us an exceptional nation.”

The Modern Military Association is a civil rights group that defends LGBTQI+ veterans.  In a press release that responded to the announcement, the advocacy organization called for individual departments of the armed services [to] streamline the process and provide the much-needed relief as soon as possible by filing requests for all similarly harmed individuals and exercise their capacity to approve the pardons and their discharge upgrades en masse. 

The Military Departments (Army, Navy, or Air Force), or in the case of the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, have provided information about application procedures for certificates of pardon. The US Department of Defense has established a resource page and states that it will additionally offer outreach to veterans who may be eligible. 

Internationally, the UK and Germany have passed similar policies in the past two years. This declaration coincides with the end of Pride month in the US.

The post US president pardons LGBTQI+ military veterans’ convictions of now-repealed discriminatory laws appeared first on JURIST – News.

US Supreme Court to rule on legality of gender-affirming care bans for transgender youth

The US Supreme Court announced Monday it will review the legality of state efforts to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors — a contentious issue in a nation deeply divided over transgender rights and the role of medical intervention in youth gender identity.

The case, US v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law enacted in March 2023 that bans healthcare providers from performing medical procedures on minors or administering treatments intended to help minors identify with a gender different from their sex as assigned at birth. The law also curtailed then-ongoing gender-affirming care for minor patients.

In the immediate aftermath of the law’s passage, the families of three transgender teenagers sued Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, the state’s health department, its medical board, and several other officials. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated their Equal Protection rights, as enshrined in the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution, and sought to enjoin the law from taking effect. They argued the law “discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status by prohibiting certain medical treatments only for transgender patients and only when those treatments are performed ‘for the purpose of . . . [e]nabling a minor to identify with, or live as,’ a gender identity other than the sex designated at birth.”

In June 2023, the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee sided with the plaintiffs, granting a preliminary injunction. But the following month, the injunction was overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. In November, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

The US then intervened on the plaintiffs’ side, arguing that the Supreme Court’s opinion was imperative given that the Tennessee law is part of a broader wave of gender-affirming care bans that had resulted in multiple circuit-level conflicts, asserting:

Those laws, and the conflicting court decisions about their validity, are creating profound uncertainty for transgender adolescents and their families around the Nation—and inflicting particularly acute harms in Tennessee and other States where the laws have been allowed to take effect.

At present, half the states in the nation have passed laws barring transgender youth from obtaining gender-affirming care — with state policies diverging on the expansiveness of the definition of such treatments. A handful of states — Alabama, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, according to the advocacy group MAP — make it a felony to provide gender-affirming care to youths.

According to a report released earlier this year by the UCLA School of Law, 93 percent of transgender teens (aged 13-17) in the US live in states that have either passed or proposed legislation aiming to block such treatments. The number of states that have banned gender-affirming care for minors has surged in the past two years, from four in 2022 to 25 as of the time of writing. This period has seen a widening rift between Conservative and Progressive values across the US, which has had an impact on state and federal policies ranging from reproductive rights to border security.

The post US Supreme Court to rule on legality of gender-affirming care bans for transgender youth appeared first on JURIST – News.