## Facts

- Jones David Hollister, a nonbinary person, petitioned the Lane County Circuit Court under ORS 33.460 to change their legal sex designation from female to nonbinary.
- Hollister submitted the statutory attestation stating they had undergone “surgical, hormonal, or other treatment appropriate for the purpose of affirming [their] gender identity.”
- The circuit court accepted that Hollister satisfied the attestation requirement.
- The circuit court nevertheless denied the petition, reasoning that ORS 33.460 did not authorize a nonbinary legal sex designation and limited relief to male or female.
- Hollister appealed; no respondent appeared, and several amici filed briefs.

## Issues

1. Whether ORS 33.460 permits a circuit court to order a change of legal sex to “nonbinary,” or whether the statute restricts a court to “male” or “female” designations.

## Decision

- Reversed and remanded.
- The court held that ORS 33.460 authorizes a change of legal sex to nonbinary when the petitioner meets the statute’s attestation requirement.
- The circuit court committed legal error by denying the petition solely based on a perceived lack of authority to recognize a nonbinary designation.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation focuses first on text and context; appellate review of the trial court’s construction is for legal error.
- ORS 33.460 requires an attestation of treatment “appropriate for the purpose of affirming the individual’s gender identity” and does not expressly limit the resulting legal sex designation to male or female.
- Because the statute is framed around affirming gender identity, the court’s authority extends to issuing a legal sex designation that aligns with the petitioner’s affirmed identity, including nonbinary.
- A binary-only understanding of “sex” is not compelled by the statute’s text or context; the statutory purpose is alignment of legal sex with gender identity.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted ORS 33.460 to allow a legal sex change to nonbinary upon the required attestation and reversed the denial of Hollister’s petition, remanding for entry of an order consistent with that interpretation.


In re Hollister, 305 Or. App. 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)