Previous 102 / 115 Next

cumple con los estándares internacionales antes mencionados, pues está reconocida la posibilidad de que una persona cambie el sexo de su acta de nacimiento con una simple autoadscripción[100]. A mi juicio, estamos frente a dos momentos distintos: uno, en el que el Estado reconoce oficialmente que una persona pertenece a determinado género, reconocimiento que puede ser rectificado con una simple autoadscripción; y, un segundo momento, que es el ejercicio de los derechos civiles y políticos de la persona ostentándose según su género. Los estándares internacionales a los que hace referencia la sentencia se refieren al primer momento, esto es, al reconocimiento oficial que hace el Estado de una persona que se autoadscribe a un género determinado. Considero que este primer momento es en el cual, en efecto, el Estado no puede cuestionar la identidad de género de una persona que se asume como tal. Asimismo, considero que es discriminatorio que se cuestione dicha identidad. No obstante, en el caso concreto que se está analizando ahora no estamos en ese momento, porque no se está haciendo un requerimiento oficial al Estado de que reconozca dicha identidad de género. Estamos, en realidad, en un segundo momento en el que una persona desea ejercer sus derechos político-electorales ostentándose con un género que no corresponde a su sexo por nacimiento, sin que previamente haya solicitado ante el Estado el reconocimiento de este género. Su documento de identificación, por tanto, no coincide con la identidad con la que esta persona se autoadscribe. En efecto, en el caso que se analiza ahora no está en cuestión si el Estado reconoce o no la identidad de género de las personas que se autoadscriben como mujeres trans. Esto, porque la autoridad electoral no tiene facultades para –ni está dentro de sus finalidades– reconocer la identidad de las personas. Bajo este escenario, es que a mi juicio el derecho de la identidad de las personas no puede ser absoluto. Primero, porque existe una instancia previa por medio de la cual la ciudadanía puede solicitar el reconocimiento oficial por parte del Estado de su cambio de género. En segundo lugar, porque el derecho a la identidad de las personas debe ponderarse, en este Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mexico SUP JDC 304 2018

Judgment

Question Presented: The High Chamber of the confirmed the validity of the candidacy of two transgender people (muxes in the state of Oaxaca) to occupy public posts reserved for women and revoked the registration of 15 male candidates.

Alleged Acts: On April, 2018, the Institute for Elections and Citizen Participation of Oaxaca (IEEPCO) approved to register 19 people who were self-identified as muxes or transgender, as female candidates for legislative and municipal offices within the gender quotas for women . However, the muxe community of Oaxaca considered that, out of the 19 candidacies, 17 of them were fraudulent since they were only pretending to be transgender. Based on these arguments, members of the muxe community filed a complaint with IEEPCO, against these 17 candidacies. The IEEPCO analyzed the arguments of the claim and, after obtaining some evidence on the gender identity with which these 17 candidates conducted themselves socially, opted to cancel the registration, considering that there were irregularities and that, in its opinion, they were men who had self-identified as transgender women .

Summary: In the ruling SUP-JDC-304/2018 and accumulated dated June 21, 2018, the High Chamber defined two determinant issues: the requirements that the State can demand to any person in order to: 1) prove their gender identity and 2) to access to gender quotas in electoral matters and the measures that the authorities can (and should) adopt to verify the gender identity of a person in order to avoid the fraudulent use of gender quotas. The High Chamber ruled that it is enough to inform the respective authority the gender self-identification with a manifestation that clearly indicates the intent of the person in question. They reached this conclusion for two reasons: due to the application of the principle of progressiveness and to provide the principle of parity or substantive equality a useful and non-discriminatory effect. First, the High Chamber considered that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1st; 4th; 35th, section II; and, 41th, fourth paragraph of the Constitution, all authorities in Mexico, within the scope of their authority, have the obligation to protect and guarantee human rights, which include legal gender equality, the right to stand for election, and the prohibition of the discrimination of a person due to their gender.

Conclusion: The Electoral Tribunal realized that, as the muxe community had stated, 15 of those 17 candidates had tried to register first as men, but not getting the registration because the male gender quota was already covered, they decided to self-identify as transgender women. For this reason, the High Chamber considered that these 15 applications were contradictory with the second manifestation of self-identification arising from the request made by the IEEPCO. Therefore, independently of the express manifestation of these 15 people self-identifying to the transsexual gender, the High Chamber ordered the cancellation of the registration of these candidacies and ordered to replace them with 15 women.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Gender
Quotas

Region: Americas

Country: Mexico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 21, 2018

Geolocation

Latitude: 19.433186441267804

Longitude: -99.13401777615888

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Mexico- SUP-JDC-304-2018.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Mexico SUP JDC 304 2018

Primary Documents

Notifications