Judge Rules On Sex Change (Press, 23 April 1975)

On 23 April 1975, a Supreme Court judge in Auckland ruled that a man who had undergone a successful sex change operation, referred to as "Mr X," was not legally recognised as a woman. Mr X sought a court order to legally declare his sex as female, arguing that his birth certificate and official records still designated him as male despite his surgical transition and other medically related changes. In his detailed 10-page judgment, Justice McMullin noted that New Zealand law did not currently provide a procedure for such a declaration regarding sex change. He mentioned that while ten American states had established a process to alter the designation on birth certificates, no similar legislation existed in New Zealand. The judge asserted that only Parliament could enact a law to allow individuals like Mr X the opportunity to gain official recognition of their transitioned sex. Justice McMullin expressed his belief that if legislation were to be introduced, its usage would likely be rare. He emphasised that it was up to Parliament to decide if genuine transsexuals should be afforded the chance for legal acknowledgment of their psychological identity and the medical changes they have undergone. The judge prohibited the publication of Mr X’s name, age, address, and some portions of the judgement to ensure his anonymity. Expert medical testimonies in court indicated that Mr X could be considered female in many respects, except for genetic components and the absence of a uterus and ovaries. In the judgement, Justice McMullin provided a definition of transsexualism, distinguishing it from transvestism, the latter being described as an intermittent desire to dress and live as the opposite sex without the strong urge characteristic of transsexuals. Mr X's initial request to have his birth details amended to reflect his female identity was denied by the Registrar-General of Births in 1973, prompting his court action. The judge acknowledged various challenges faced by Mr X due to his transsexuality, including difficulties in social situations, employment issues, and potential legal impediments to marriage. The Marriage Act required an assurance of no lawful impediment for couples intending to marry, which could be complicated by the fact that Mr X was considered male under current law. Moreover, Justice McMullin highlighted potential legal complications, such as the risk of criminal charges under specific statutes and challenges related to inheritance and estate planning where gender designations might create confusion. The judge concluded that Mr X’s situation exemplified the pressing need for legal recognition and protection for individuals undergoing similar transitions.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand