Dunne Peter
School of Law, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Med Law Rev. 2015 Fall;23(4):646-58. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwv019. Epub 2015 May 14.
In YY v Turkey, the Second Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Turkey's refusal, over a period of many years, to authorise gender confirmation surgery because the applicant remained capable of procreating was a violation of the right to private life under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Second Chamber's judgment acknowledges, and gives practical effect to, the 'physical and moral security' of transgender persons. YY has the potential to revolutionise gender confirming health care in Europe and will hopefully ensure that, where individuals do seek to medically transition, they need only access to treatments that are both necessary and desired. The ECtHR's decision may also impact upon the legal recognition of transgender identities. While not the direct focus of the Second Chamber's assessment, legal gender recognition is a constant theme throughout the judgment, and many of the Court's arguments are equally applicable to legal schemes for acknowledging preferred gender.
在YY诉土耳其案中，欧洲人权法院第二庭裁定，土耳其多年来拒绝批准性别确认手术，理由是申请人仍有生育能力，这违反了《欧洲人权公约》第八条所规定的私生活权利。第二庭的判决承认并切实保障了跨性别者的“身体和道德安全”。YY案有可能给欧洲的性别确认医疗带来变革，并有望确保，在个人确实寻求医疗变性的情况下，他们只需获得必要且想要的治疗。欧洲人权法院的这一裁决也可能会对跨性别身份的法律承认产生影响。虽然不是第二庭评估的直接重点，但法律性别承认是整个判决中一直贯穿的主题，而且法院的许多论点同样适用于承认首选性别的法律方案。
