W v Gender Recognition Panel

The Panel had found that W had not “lived in the acquired gender” for the preceding two years nor intended to do so until death – the relevant criteria in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 – because W had previously attempted to conceive and intended to take active steps to do so in the future.

The High Court (Hayden J) considered that the Panel’s reasoning could be “manifestly distilled into one central premise”: that pregnancy was inconsistent with living in the male gender. Treating that reason as determinative was held to constitute a significant interference with W’s Article 8 rights, and to be inconsistent with the permissive objectives and philosophy of the GRA 2004.

Hayden J allowed the appeal and, having considered the totality of the evidence, issued the GRC.

Gayatri Sarathy acted for the Appellant, instructed by Matthew Gill at the Good Law Project.

The judgment may be found here.