Friedlander, J.
Appellant is a transgender male who identifies as a man, lives as a man, and has undergone extensive medical treatment for gender transition, including gender reassignment surgery. Appellant filed a petition to change his legal gender so that he could correct the gender markers on his birth certificate. The trial court denied the petition based upon a perceived lack of authority to grant such a request. In this uncontested appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to grant the petition.
We reverse and remand.
In 1988, Appellant was born in Indiana as a genotypical female. Since 2008, Appellant has received ongoing psychotherapy to address longstanding gender dysphoria (formerly known as gender identity disorder). As Appellant’s desire and readiness to pursue gender reassignment became clear, Appellant began living as a male in January 2011 and shortly thereafter started testosterone treatment, which he has since continued. Appellant legally changed his name in 2012, and he completed sex reassignment surgery the following year. According to his surgeon, Appellant’s true gender, based upon psychological and medical testing, is male. Appellant has changed his name and gender mark on his driver’s license, as well as with the Social Security Administration. His birth certificate is the only significant life document that remains to be changed.
….
I.C. § 16-37-2-10 provides general authority for the amendment of birth certificates, without any express limitation (in the statute or elsewhere) regarding gender amendments. In light of this statute, as well as the inherent equity power of a court of general jurisdiction, we conclude that the trial court had authority to grant the petition at hand. See State ex. rel. Root v. Circuit Court of Allen County, 289 N.E.2d 503, 507 (Ind. 1972) (“a court of general jurisdiction has inherent equity power unless a statute expressly or impliedly provides otherwise”). See also In re Heilig, 816 A.2d at 82 (“[t]here is nothing extraordinary about equity jurisdiction in these kinds of matters”).
….
There can be no question in this case that Appellant made an adequate showing in support of his petition. He presented ample medical evidence regarding his gender transition, which culminated in sex reassignment surgery. Moreover, Appellant’s genuine desire to have all identifying documents conform to his current physical and social identity is apparent.
The trial court erred in denying the petition. On remand, the trial court is directed to grant Appellant’s petition and issue an order directing the ISDH to amend his birth certificate to reflect his male gender.
Reversed and remanded.
VAIDIK, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.