Previous 71 / 115 Next

287 El criterio de que la identidad sexo-genérica de las personas depende de la manifestación voluntaria de la persona se retoma en los trámites que los códigos de la Ciudad de México[77], Michoacán[78] y Nayarit[79] establecen para el cambio de sexo en el acta de nacimiento. 288 Lo mismo pasa, por ejemplo, con la Ley de Identidad de Género 26.743 de Argentina, promulgada en 2012. Su artículo 3 señala que [t]oda persona podrá solicitar la rectificación registral del sexo, y el cambio de nombre de pila e imagen, cuando no coincidan con su identidad de género autopercibida. 289 En igual sentido, el Protocolo para adoptar las medidas tendientes a garantizar a las personas trans el ejercicio del voto en igualdad de condiciones y sin discriminación en todos los tipos de elección y mecanismos de participación ciudadana el Consejo General del INE determinó que “Corresponde a cualquier persona autorizada para estar presente en la casilla: […] 5. Abstenerse de aplicar procedimientos adicionales para confirmar la identidad de una persona. No se debe pedir ninguna otra prueba que sustente la identidad o personalidad jurídica de la persona portadora de su credencial para votar. 6. Evitar cuestionar a la persona sobre su identidad y/o evitar realizar actos intimidatorios que invadan su privacidad y signifiquen un trato desigual (miradas detenidas e incómodas, preguntas impertinentes sobre sus características físicas o apariencia, gestos y comentarios denigrantes y estereotipados) o cualquier otra conducta que restrinja el derecho al libre desarrollo de la personalidad. 290 Además, en numerosas sentencias de tribunales constitucionales de países como Alemania[80], India[81], Malasia[82] y Pakistán[83] se ha señalado la necesidad no solo de reconocer que personas cuya orientación sexual, identidad de género o sexo no coincidan con aquel que les fue asignado al momento de nacer, tienen no solo el derecho de elegir aquel con el cual se sientan plenamente identificados, sino a que dicha circunstancia sea reconocida por el Estado y tutelada de forma tal que permita potenciar el ejercicio de sus derechos humanos. 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