A report by the judiciary believes that trans law can discriminate against non-transgender women and call for more control.

The draft report, to be considered by the General Assembly on April 20 on the Trans Law, criticizes some of its fundamental aspects and generally calls for more control over the gender reassignment process in the civil registry: Rapporteurs say they “do not question the right to sexual identity,” but Criticize, for example, that minors between the ages of 14 and 16 can change their identity in the civil registry only with the consent of their legal representative. Members also point out that some articles of the measure provide for “indirect discrimination” against non-transgender women. And he cites, for example, sports as one such situation.

The report understands that trans law has provisions that “contradict the fundamental right to equality (14 CE) insofar as they contribute to the undesirable effect of creating situations of positive discrimination and, consequently, to discrimination that is generally indirect. “People who are not considered subjective to its use are particularly important to non-transgender women.” They also point to “dark aspects and certain dysfunctions” and recommend that the rule provide “a guarantee that modification of the gender designation will not allow obligations and responsibilities towards victims of gender-based violence to be avoided in fraudulent situations.”

With a delay of more than three months, the General Council of the Court (CGPJ) will adopt its conclusion at an extraordinary plenary session convened after the resurrection. The draft law on real and effective equality of trans-human beings and the guarantee of the rights of LGBT people, approved by the Council of Ministers in June last year, envisages a number of measures in all areas and provides for gender self-determination. Allows persons over the age of 16, ie allows them to change their legal sex without the need for medical treatment or psychological reporting, as is currently required.

Sport and gender-based violence

However, the suggestion of the CGPJ rapporteurs, who are responsible for revising the text, is very critical of some of its provisions. The report cites sport-related measures, which “consider it necessary to take precautionary measures” to ensure that sporting events do not involve “discrimination against non-transgender female athletes”. What he justifies is “the difference in physical conditions and the physical superiority of transgender women over those who are not.”

The speakers are concerned about the consequences of the fact that trans people “will be able to exercise all the rights inherent in their new situation” after changing their legal gender “in a general manner”. Effects “which can paradoxically lead to discriminatory situations against women and therefore oppose equality,” the bill said, citing sports or mandatory physical tests for access to certain professions.

For this reason, they demand a “more precise and clear” wording of Article 40 of the draft, which ensures that “the registration amendment will allow a person to enjoy all the rights inherent in his or her new situation.” And they specifically name the area of ​​gender-based violence.

The government-approved text states that gender reassignment will not change the legal rights and obligations that a person exercises before making changes, specifically under the Comprehensive Law on Gender-Based Violence, but the report believes that this provision “should be better regulated” because “it should be understood.” In the sense that modifying the mention of men does not change the protection regime that the law provides for victims of gender-based violence and does not allow it to be avoided. ”

More requirements for ages range from 14 to 16 years

The proposed report devotes in part to the regulation of legal sex change that the law imposes on minors. The text allows legal change of sex from the age of 12 and not before, in different divisions: from 16 years without requirements, from 14 to 16 years with the consent of their legal representatives and from 12 to 14 years with court permission.

The view states that the right is not limited to adolescents, as “it brings significant benefits to right-holders” and “provides” some principles and rights, such as the right to privacy or personal development, more virtuality, but considers that 14 out of 16 Subjecting more requirements than parental consent for adults under the age of “does not comply with the principle of special protection of minors and, in terms of proportionality, special advantage. His highest interest. ” Specifically, those who “lack a sufficient degree of maturity or whose transsexual status is not stabilized.”

For this reason, they consider it appropriate that minors between the ages of 14, 15 and 16 also seek court permission through voluntary jurisdiction to change their legal gender, as is already the case for persons aged 12 to 14 years. “Correcting the mention of sex in the civil registry without any conditions should be limited to persons over 16 years of age, which is justified by their greater ability to assess the degree of sufficient maturity and the degree of stability. “Transsexual status with a lower risk of remission,” they said.

Conversion therapy

Another critical point in the opinion is the ban on therapies for attempts to change homosexuality or transsexuality, the promotion of which is considered a “very serious violation” of the law. A veto on these therapies, which usually involves psychological interventions to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, is considered by speakers to be “particularly favorable”, but they believe this should not be the case when people consent. What they consider to be “controversial, because it is an unjustified restriction on the ability of people to act,” they pray.

Conditions for reversing changes

Judges are also asking the government to amend the article, which provides for the abolition of legal sex reassignment within a maximum of six months, i.e. it allows people who do so to go back to their previous registration, to mention if half of it has not passed. Of the anus. This, the rapporteurs say, “should be considered on an absolutely exceptional basis, according to pre-determined cases and conditions in which it should take place, always by a court decision and never in an unconditional or unrestricted manner.”

Content of the law

The preliminary draft, now being studied by the CGPJ, was approved by the Council of Ministers in June last year, a rule that amends the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Disputed Law, the tion Society Law and voluntary jurisdiction. Among others. The main measure is the depathologization of transsexuality, that is, the recognition of the right to gender self-determination by which trans people can change their legal sex through double declaration in the civil registry, with three months of separation and no more requirements. Manifestation of his free will.

The bill, backed by the Ministry of Equality and which has caused tensions in the government, also includes measures such as the right of lesbian, bisexual and single women to have access to assisted reproduction equipment. And promotes measures to promote trans people access to the labor market, improve the health care that the group receives, and promote respect for sexual diversity in educational programs.

Report delays

As elDiario.es reported in recent weeks, the report, which the council is considering on April 20, has been delayed since the executive presented the draft on December 15. The equality norm was sent in such a way that the conclusion was carried out by urgent procedures, which gave 15 days for the ruling body of judges to issue an opinion and vote, a deadline which was more than four months missed. The same thing happens with the Fiscal Council.

During these months, the department, headed by Irene Montero, repeatedly appealed to her, from January to March, to request speed from the governing body of judges. Equality, through the Ministry of Justice, exerted some pressure, and shortly thereafter, CGPJ President Carlos Lesmes announced that he would move the study of the report to an extraordinary plenary session on April 20, usually eight days before the monthly plenary session.