{"id":4035,"date":"2023-02-21T15:28:18","date_gmt":"2023-02-21T07:28:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.boasecohencollins.com\/?p=4035"},"modified":"2023-02-21T15:28:20","modified_gmt":"2023-02-21T07:28:20","slug":"questions-remain-after-gender-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boasecohencollins.com\/zh-hans\/%e7%bd%91%e8%aa%8c\/questions-remain-after-gender-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Questions remain after gender ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Colin Cohen and Jasmine Kwong<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hong Kong, 21 February 2023:<\/strong> In a landmark ruling, the Court of Final Appeal has found the government breached the rights of two transgender men by refusing to let them amend their Hong Kong identity cards without full reassignment surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, while the judgment marks another significant victory for members of the LGBTQ+ community in their long-running campaign for equality, there remains much uncertainty about how it will be applied in common social situations and what measures, if any, the authorities will implement as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CFA ruling<\/a> was the culmination of a legal battle which began in 2019 when the two litigants, Henry Edward Tse and another trans man identified as \u201cQ\u201d, filed a claim against the Commissioner of Registration \u2013 a role filled by the Director of Immigration \u2013 after he refused to let them change their HKID card gender status to male.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The crux of the matter was the Commissioner\u2019s policy governing gender status on HKID cards, which show the holder as being either male or female. Such a gender marker merely operates as an element for verifying the holder\u2019s identity, it does not signify recognition of the person\u2019s sex as a matter of law. However, for transgender people seeking to have the marker amended to reflect their acquired gender \u2013 that is, the one with which they identify, as opposed to that assigned at birth \u2013 the Commissioner has required them to undergo full reassignment surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both appellants were female-to-male transgender persons who had identified as male since their youth. They had each undergone medical treatments, acquiring masculine bodily features and living as men, thus assisting their social integration. On this basis, they applied to amend the gender markers on their HKID cards, but were turned down by the Commissioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pair brought judicial review proceedings to challenge the decision, which they contended violated their constitutional right to privacy under Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The judicial reviews were dismissed by both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, although the latter granted them leave to appeal to the CFA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CFA judges held that the government\u2019s policy of insisting on full reassignment surgery was disproportionate in its encroachment on the appellants\u2019 Article 14 rights:<\/p>\n\n\n\n