Japan's top court says government restrictions on transgender employee's use of restrooms illegal
Japan’s Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions imposed by a government ministry on a transgender female employee’s use of restrooms at her workplace are illegal, in a landmark decision that could promote LGBTQ+ rights in a country without legal protections for them
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Japan’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that restrictions imposed by a government ministry on a transgender female employee's use of restrooms at her workplace are illegal, in a landmark decision that could promote LGBTQ+ rights in a country without legal protections for them.
It was the court's first ruling on the working environment for LGBTQ+ individuals.
The judges said in a unanimous ruling that the Economy and Trade Ministry's restrictions, which forced the plaintiff to use either a nearby men's room or women's restrooms that were at least two floors away, were “extremely inappropriate." It said the approval of the restrictions by the National Personnel Authority, which is supposed to serve the interests of government employees, was “illegal” and an “abuse of power.”
The victory by the plaintiff, identified only as a transgender woman in her 50s who is a ministry official, was good news for the LGBTQ+ community in Japan, the only member of the Group of Seven industrialized nations that does not grant legal protections to same-sex marriages.
“All people should have the right to live their lives in society based on their own sexual identities,” the plaintiff said after the ruling. “The significance of that should not be reduced to the usage of toilets or public baths.”
The ministry had imposed the two-floor bathroom restriction to limit the chances that the plaintiff's coworkers might use the same restroom and be embarrassed.
The decision comes at a time of increased awareness and support for the rights of sexual minorities in Japan. LGBTQ+ activists have increased their efforts to achieve an anti-discrimination law since a former aide to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said in February that he wouldn’t want to live next to LGBTQ+ people and that citizens would flee Japan if same-sex marriage were allowed.
But opposition to equal rights remains strong within Kishida's governing Liberal Democratic Party, known for its conservative values. In June, parliament passed a contentious law to promote awareness of sexual minorities without providing legal rights.
Transgender people in Japan must undergo surgery to remove their reproductive organs in order to have their gender changed on official documents, a requirement that human rights groups call inhumane.
Kishida insists that public views vary on same-sex marriage, and that its legal recognition would have a broad impact on society and therefore must be discussed carefully.
A court in Fukuoka in southern Japan ruled last month that the lack of legal protections for LGTBQ+ people appears to be unconstitutional. It was the last of five court cases brought by 14 same-sex couples in 2019 that accused the government of violating their equality. Four of the courts ruled that current government policy is unconstitutional or nearly so, while a fifth said a ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional.