WPATH identity recognition statement

June 16, 2010

Via WPATH’s website:


June 16, 2010

The Board of Directors of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), in the interest of the health and well-being of transgender and transsexual people world-wide, issued today, 16 June 2010, the following identity recognition statement:

No person should have to undergo surgery or accept sterilization as a condition of identity recognition. If a sex marker is required on an identity document, that marker could recognize the person’s lived gender, regardless of reproductive capacity. The WPATH Board of Directors urges governments and other authoritative bodies to move to eliminate requirements for identity recognition that require surgical procedures.


Cross-posted at Questioning Transphobia


7 Responses to “WPATH identity recognition statement”

  1. And this edict shall be loudly protested by both right-wing Christians and the elitist post-op crowd of ts-si.com alike. *sighs* I’ll just go get my umbrella, the sh*t-storm, she be a-comin’.

  2. Helen G Says:

    Also, no mention of hormone therapy, and the statement doesn’t address the common legal requirement for psychiatric evidence.

    So I think there may be more than a few people in the trans community who won’t be too thrilled about it, either…

  3. Topsy.com Says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John O'Dwyer, Katie B. Katie B said: “@helen_bop: New post – WPATH identity recognition statement – http://bit.ly/a4lFa1 (BoP) – http://bit.ly/dyC3Rq (QT)” […]

  4. HenryHall Says:

    Yes, indeed, the all too common requirement for psychiatric evidence is far more burdensome and damaging than any requirement for surgery or sterilization can be. More damaging than a requirement for hormones would be.

    My great fear is that some church-going politician will seize on this statement as an excuse to exchange an existing requirement for surgery for a new requirement for psychiatric evidence. WPATH in effect encourages such a regressive step like the awful situation in England where postop transwomen cannot get legal recognition because they have always been of sound mind. And refuse to feign mental illness.

  5. Helen G Says:

    Maybe I misunderstand, but doesn’t a medical diagnosis as being transsexual automatically mean that one is deemed mentally ill, by virtue of it being defined as such in the DSM? In other words, one is deemed to be mentally ill from the minute one is diagnosed, irrespective of how one perceives one’s mental health to be?

    As far as the GRC goes, I was more annoyed that I had to wait for two years after undergoing surgery before I could apply and finally have the gender marker changed on my birth certificate (even though everything else – passport, driving lcence, tax status, etc – was changed very early in my transition).

    And, if one has transitioned surgically/medically, then does the diagnosis about being mentally ill still apply? If arbitrary points are set at diagnosis, then shouldn’t completing the recommended “treatment” also arbitrarily imply that one’s mental health is better?

    I mean, I don’t know for sure, I’m no expert on the finer points of the subject, like many, I did what I needed to do to bring my gender dissonance into a manageable state – that was my personal ‘prime directive’, if you like – but I’d be interested to know your (and other peoples) interpretations.

  6. HenryHall Says:

    HelenG writes: … doesn’t a medical diagnosis as being transsexual automatically mean that one is deemed mentally ill, by virtue of it being defined as such in the DSM?

    That is correct, but only in Britain is such a diagnosis needed for legal recognition.

    Elsewhere (and for that small minority of Britons who apply under 1(1)(b) of the GRA(2004)), mere surgery is sufficient and neither psychiatry nor a two-year wait is a requirement.

    Psychiatry and waiting periods are hate-inspired, damaging, unneeded and unwanted for the most part.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: