All 15 judges voted in full on a motion contested whether a statutory provision requiring a sterilization surgery to change the gender on the family register was unconstitutional. decided to go to court.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that this provision does not violate the Constitution, but there is a possibility that a new constitutional judgment will be presented.
What was decided to be heard in the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court was a petition filed by a person who was born as a man and lives a social life as a woman, seeking to change the gender on her family register.
He argued that the provision of the Gender Identity Disorder Special Law, which requires removal of the gonads in order to change the gender on the family register, ``is a compulsory surgery, a serious violation of human rights, and violates the Constitution.'' I am asking you to allow me to change my gender even if I have not undergone surgery.
Regarding this provision, the Supreme Court said three years ago, ``It is based on consideration that social confusion may occur if a child is born with the reproductive function of the gender before the change, and comprehensively considers the purpose of the provision. Then it does not violate the constitution."
However, with all 15 judges having decided to hear the allegations in the grand court, there is a possibility that the judicial precedent will be reviewed and a new constitutional judgment will be presented.
Attorney Kazuyuki Minami said, "I'm surprised that two years have passed since I filed a special appeal to the Supreme Court, and it was referred to the Grand Court. I expect a courteous decision."