Sex-Change Dad's Child Registered as Illegitimate

Kon Hated Sad Stories
There's one sad story doing the rounds this week. It's the case of a Japanese couple who recently had a child through artificial insemination and were told to register the child as illegitimate simply because the 'official' father had recently had a sex change.

Here's what happened. The man from Hyogo Prefecture wanted to change his sex status from female to male because of a sexual identity disorder. And, apparently, Japan had a law dating back to 2004 which made this possible. All good and well and progressive, you would think. 

Once the man got the approval to change his sex, he got married. And his wife later gave birth (they had gone for artificial insemination in order to have their kid). That's where the good news stop, it seems. When the couple tried registering their child, a frumpy official somewhere said no. Turns out, they saw on the records that he was previously female and thus, this made it impossible to register him as the father of the child.

It all seems to be do with the child and father having a 'genetic father-child relationship'. It makes me wonder why they would have a liberal law authorizing sex status change and then undo all the good they have done by denying such folks the rights of a parent over their children. By the way, in case you were wondering about men who have had children in a similar manner and furthermore, do not have the gender identity change to their name, seems like their kids get the legal recognition. So, as the critics are also pointing out, why is this particular person, and indeed other like him, denied the same status? How weird is this ruling?

It actually gets a bit worst along the way. I read in Mainichi that the Justice Ministry actually suggested that it is a better idea for such folks to adopt kids. Apparently that way they can have rights over the kid. I'm pretty sure that comment will come back to haunt them later on.

Somehow it seems that this issue again comes down to tracing people's genetic links to one another. Yea, that sounds outdated and archaic. Then again, it actually might have more to do with GLBT rights than making a fuss over such an age-old rule. After all, if adopted kids can technically get the same rights (as the Justice Ministry folks nicely assured us there), it means that having a genetic link between parent and father is not that important in the legal sense, no? Regarding my earlier, comment about GLBT rights, check out this Japan Visitor article about the Transgender Community in Japan. From what I gathered (read their reference to Article 24 of the Constitution), the powers that be are iffy about same-sex marriages. Hence, folks who change gender status are in for a bit of a fight once they are married and kids enter the picture. Again, why stick with an old rule (like the one that defines the gender roles of folks in a marriage) that doesn't apply to the modern day, especially one that hinders all the progress you make with new laws?