At present, the subject of transgender rights – particularly where they concern the safeguarding of transgender reproduction – has represented a fiercely fought political battleground. The inflammatory debates have inevitably bled into the legal landscape, and trepidation regarding transgender procreation has influenced the way European jurisdictions legally recognise gender. Through AP, Garcon and Nicot v France, the ECtHR has undoubtedly made a watershed ruling in declaring that compulsory sterilisation requirements infringed Article 8 Convention Rights. The Courts ultimately ruled on the side of the reproductive rights of trans persons. However, we must remain vigilant of prematurely celebrating its decision. In doing away with sterilisation requirements, the Court effectively ensured that legal gender recognition remained firmly within the remit of trans-medicalism, placing significant power in the hands of medical providers as gatekeepers to gender recognition. This article critiques the decision of AP Garcon and Nicot. It utilises the theoretical framework of Reproductive Justice to scrutinise the enduring pathologisation of trans bodies, and its effect on the ability for trans individuals to reproduce and parent freely. This article ultimately argues that despite the merits of the case, the long sought-after state of reproductive justice is yet to be served.
A. S. Chen (Tue,) studied this question.