## Facts

- An individual with an intersex variation was registered as “female” at birth.
- As an adult, the individual did not identify as male or female and sought a positive civil-status entry reflecting an intersex/non-binary identity.
- The individual requested deletion of “female” and substitution with “inter/diverse,” or alternatively “diverse,” in the birth register.
- The civil registry office denied the request because the governing civil-status scheme permitted only “male,” “female,” or a blank entry when sex could not be assigned.
- Ordinary courts upheld the denial.
- The individual filed a constitutional complaint challenging the court decisions and the statutory provisions requiring a sex entry while excluding a positive non-binary category.

## Issues

1. Whether a civil-status scheme that requires a sex entry but allows only “male,” “female,” or a blank entry violates the constitutional protection of gender identity as part of the general right of personality.
2. Whether denying a positive non-binary sex entry constitutes discrimination “because of sex” against persons who do not identify as male or female.
3. What remedial obligations the legislature has if the scheme is unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The court held that gender identity is protected by the general right of personality and includes protection for persons who cannot be permanently assigned to “male” or “female.”
- The court held that the constitutional ban on discrimination because of sex extends to persons who do not identify as male or female.
- The court declared the civil-status provisions incompatible with constitutional guarantees insofar as they required sex registration while providing no positive entry beyond “male” or “female” for persons with non-binary gender development.
- The court set aside the challenged decisions to the extent they rested on the unconstitutional statutory framework.
- The court ordered the legislature to cure the constitutional defect by a specified deadline, identifying as options either eliminating mandatory sex registration or creating an additional positive category.

## Legal Principles

- The general right of personality protects self-determined identity formation and includes gender identity as a core element of personality and social recognition.
- A state civil-status system that structures “civil identity” must respect and protect gender identity; compelling an inaccurate binary label or offering only a blank entry can constitute an unconstitutional interference.
- Denial of a positive non-binary sex entry is differential treatment linked to “sex” and may amount to discrimination because of sex.
- Where less rights-restrictive means are available (e.g., abolishing compulsory registration or adding a category), limiting entries to binary options (or a blank) can fail proportionality review.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated, in relevant part, a binary-only civil-status sex-registration regime because it infringed protected gender identity and unlawfully disadvantaged non-binary persons; it required legislative reform to permit meaningful legal recognition beyond “male” and “female” or to end mandatory sex registration.


Gender Identity—Equality of Persons Who Consider Themselves Neither Male nor Female, 1 BvR 2019/16 (BVerfG 2017)