W v Gender Recognition Panel: High Court rules pregnancy does not preclude trans men from gender recognition

The High Court has overturned a Gender Recognition Panel decision refusing a Gender Recognition Certificate to a trans man attempting to conceive, ruling that pregnancy and living in the male gender are not inherently incompatible.

In W v Gender Recognition Panel [2025] EWHC 2685 (Fam), Mr Justice Hayden allowed the appeal, finding the Panel had made fundamental errors in both procedure and law when rejecting W's application for a GRC.

W, who had lived as male since 2016 and undergone a bilateral mastectomy in 2020, had paused testosterone therapy to pursue IVF treatment. The Panel initially sought clarification about whether his desire to conceive was "incompatible" with his statutory declaration to live as male until death. Despite W attending an oral hearing in August 2024 to explain his position, a differently constituted Panel later claimed he had not taken up their offer to provide evidence—a procedural error Mr Justice Hayden described as "fatal to the integrity of their decision".

The substantive legal issue concerned the interpretation of "living in the acquired gender" under section 2(1)(b) and (c) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The Panel had concluded that "pregnancy is a fundamentally female biological function" and found it "inconsistent with living in the male gender".

Mr Justice Hayden rejected this reasoning, holding that whilst biological aspects such as childbearing are relevant to assessing an applicant's "genuine and enduring adoption of their new gender", they should not be determinative. The judge emphasised that the GRA 2004 is "permissive rather than prescriptive", designed to facilitate gender recognition and avoid prolonging the "disagreeable intermediate zone" between genders identified in Goodwin v United Kingdom.

The judgement drew on McConnell v Registrar General [2019] EWHC 2384 (Fam), where Sir Andrew McFarlane P established that "the concept of a male mother is therefore not unknown to the law". Hayden J noted that being a mother or father derives from one's biological role in conception and birth, not necessarily from gender.

Critically, the court found that requiring W to choose between his gender identity and reproductive autonomy would constitute a significant interference with his Article 8 rights. The judgement referenced AP, Garçon and Nicot v France, which established that trans people cannot be required to undergo sterilisation as a precondition for gender recognition. Whilst W's situation did not involve permanent sterility, the effect of the Panel's interpretation would be to impose what counsel described as "arguably a form of sterility".

The evidence showed W had consistently lived as male for over eight years, changing all his documents, using male facilities, and presenting as male throughout. His medical team supported his application, with Dr Anna Barnes noting he lived in "a straightforwardly male role" with "no regret" about his transition. W planned to resume testosterone therapy and pursue further surgery after completing his family.

In allowing the appeal and granting the certificate, Hayden J concluded there was "abundant evidence" W continued to live as male, stating: "To require him to abandon either one for the other would be to dismantle and fracture the person he is."