Spanish judges reject "trans law" and they ask that it be raised to 18 years requesting a change of sex

The Plenary of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), the highest body of judges in Spain, questioned the bill for the real and effective equality of transsexuals.

On April 8, magistrates Ángeles Carmona, Clara Martínez de Careaga and Wenceslao Olea, sent to the members of the CGPJ a report on the preliminary draft law for the real and effective equality of trans people and for the guarantee of the rights of LGBTI people.

In this report they expressed some serious doubts about this law, since they considered that in some aspects it violates the rights of heterosexual women and that it goes against the best interests of the minor.

Yesterday, April 20, during the vote, the Plenary of the General Council of the Judiciary adhered to what was presented in the previous report and showed its rejection of the prohibition of conversion therapies, since “the prohibition does not fit in those situations in which which have the consent of the affected party.

Article 38.4 of the draft bill specifies that in order to register the change of sex in the Civil Registry, a medical or psychological report must not be submitted.

“By majority, it has been agreed to propose that the age limit be raised to 18 years so that a person can request by himself the rectification of the registry mention related to sex. In this way, the procedure provided for in the preliminary draft for minors between 12 and 14 years of age would be extended to the age of majority, which requires judicial approval, prior processing of a voluntary jurisdiction file and the demonstration of the necessary maturity and the stable will to proceed to the registry rectification of sex”, they point out.

In addition, three other magistrates, José Antonio Ballestero, Juan Manuel Fernández and José María Macías, presented a dissenting opinion strongly questioning whether “the mere manifestation of the will is enough for the rectification of the sex registry to be effective.”

These three members of the CGPJ assure that “such an important decision and with effects also for third parties, such as that of gender change, cannot depend on the mere expression of will.”

“The gender dysphoria that justifies the change of sex must have an accreditation that allows establishing a correspondence between the real will and the expressed will, and that this is not the result of not only a spurious interest, but of an unthinking or little decision. matured”, they specify according to the newspaper El Debate.

“We consider insufficient the mere declaration of will as a sufficient element for the effectiveness of the right to the registry rectification of the mention related to sex, and accreditation must be required, by the means that the legislator deems proportionate and timely, the disagreement with the sex mentioned in birth registration”, they insist.

That is why these magistrates emphasize that the European Court of Human Rights has dispensed with the requirement of surgical intervention for sex change, but “it has not done the same with the need for a diagnosis, nor the need to justify a stable situation of transsexuality ”.

And although they remember that the World Health Organization stopped considering transsexuality as a pathology”, it kept it in an epigraph of “conditions related to sexual health” called “gender incongruity”, so it is “evident that it has been tried to eliminate the stigma of mental illness or pathology, but has not stopped considering it as a situation that can come into contact with or require health services”.

That is why they consider that “the establishment of certain requirements, accrediting gender dysphoria, would be constitutionally legitimate” and they also emphasize that “the proposed modification does not correspond to the registry function, since, if the projected norm is approved, it will not they will be confirming and publishing facts and acts that refer to the civil status of people, but rather mere manifestations of will devoid of any evidentiary basis.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.