'Men' lose legal fight to change sexuality

Gender laws: Judge calls bid to alter birth certificates 'perverse'

Two transsexuals who were born male have lost their High Court battle for the right to be legally recognised as women.

"P" and "G", who cannot be named for legal reasons, applied for a judicial review of the "distressing, humiliating and embarrassing" refusal of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to allow them to alter their birth certificates so that they are formally registered as female.

Two judges expressed sympathy for their "deeply moving" plight, but rejected their accusation that the refusal was "unlawful, irrational and perverse".

Both P and G were refused leave to appeal, but they plan to ask the Court of Appeal direct to consider their case.

The judges held that the Registrar General was not required to change a birth certificate when scientific doubts remained over the causes of transsexualism.

Yesterday's ruling will disappoint many who, like P, aged 45, from the Midlands, and G, 33, from London, have undergone "gender reassignment" treatment and regard a birth certificate amendment as crucial to enjoying their new lives.

There are estimated to be 8,000 to 9,000 sex-change patients in the United Kingdom, and at least 30 other similar legal actions are pending.

P now faces legal costs which could run into thousands. G fought the case on legal aid.

"R", a 53-year-old former Wren, from Kent, who was born female but is now living as a man, is preparing legal action.

Yesterday, Lord Justice Kennedy, sitting with Mr Justice Forbes, said P and G may "well be right" in demanding a change to their birth certificates.

But he added: "In my judgment the desired result cannot be achieved by showing that the Registrar General has in relation to these two applications acted irrationally."

Laura Cox QC, for P and G, argued that the Registrar General had adopted an "out- dated" biological view of the differences between the sexes.

Crucially, he had failed to recognise that both P and G had been born with "a hormonally female brain" and had "an essentially female personality and psychological make-up".

His action was contrary to domestic law and articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guaranteed the right to a private life and not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex.

Rejecting her arguments, Lord Justice Kennedy said it was not unreasonable for the Registrar General to have reservations about assertions that "the sex of an individual must be regarded as being decided by the construction of the brain".

Even if the assertions were right, problems would remain, including whether all entries in the register would have to be amended once the unusual brain construction was brought to his attention. The judge asked: "What evidence is there that all of those with such brains do become transsexuals? And even if they do, what evidence is there that all of them want to be reclassified?"