On Thursday, 12 June 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued its judgment in T H v Czech Republic. The applicant—let’s call him Tomáš—is a Czech man who identifies as ‘non-binary’. He requested that his identity card indicate a ‘neutral gender’. However, the Czech Republic only offers two options for identity cards: ‘male’ and ‘female’. Tomáš’s request was therefore rejected.

Tomáš then asked to be recognized as ‘female’ on his ID, which the Czech authorities also refused. According to the Czech government, it is not possible to be considered a woman while having male sexual organs and chromosomes. To contest this refusal, Tomáš took the Czech Republic to the European Court of Human Rights—and the Court ruled in his favour. The ECHR condemned the Czech Republic for violating Tomáš’s rights.

As a result, the Czech Republic and all European states are supposed to align themselves with this judgment. This ruling implies that any European man must be legally recognized as a woman if he so wishes. As Marguerite Stern and Dora Moutot, authors of the excellent French book Transmania, put it: ‘It is possible to be legally recognized as a woman while having a penis.’ This marks a civilizational upheaval—or rather, a form of delusion more suited to psychiatry.

The Supposed ‘International Trend’ on Transgenderism

This ruling reveals a methodological shift in the reasoning of European judges. Typically, in sensitive social matters, the ECHR looks for a ‘European consensus’. If a consensus exists, national sovereignty is limited; if not, the ECHR allows states to legislate democratically.

This time, the ECHR made an exception. It explicitly states in its judgment that there is no European consensus but claims that this is irrelevant, given what it describes as a ‘continuing international trend in favour…of legal recognition of the new gender identity of post-operative transgender people.’ The ECHR based its ruling on this supposed international trend to condemn the Czech Republic.

‘This ruling implies that any European man must be legally recognized as a woman if he so wishes’

To support the existence of this trend, the ECHR cited a 2016 report by a United Nations expert, Juan Méndez. The report, titled ‘Gender and Torture’, was entirely funded by private donors—namely, large American liberal foundations: the Open Society and Ford Foundations. Thus, it is an activist report, financed by two lobbying groups. These lobbies mainly reflect the views of the Soros and Ford families. While these families may have good relations with European judges, they certainly do not represent a genuine ‘international trend’.

The Legitimate Resistance of the Czech Republic and Its Allies

The second noteworthy aspect of this ruling is the Czech Republic’s resistance. Its government is not backing down—and it is supported by many other governments, which is a new development.

Indeed, when the Czech Republic refused to change the sex on Tomáš’s ID card, it knew from the outset that its position was not in line with ECHR precedent (A P, Garçon and Nicot v France, 2017). Yet the government openly stood by its decision. It told the European judges that their case law did not reflect Czech values, as sex is biological and there are only two sexes at birth. The Czech government admitted to knowingly disregarding the Court’s jurisprudence and asked the ECHR to reconsider it.

‘The Czech Republic’s government is not backing down—and it is supported by many other governments’

This resistance extended beyond this specific case. The Czech government and eight other governments sent a letter to the ECHR last month. These governments include right-wing administrations, like Italy’s, and left-wing administrations like those of Poland and Denmark. The letter stated: ‘As leaders, we also believe that there is a need to look at how the European Court of Human Rights has developed its interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whether the Court, in some cases, has extended the scope of the Convention too far as compared with the original intentions behind the Convention, thus shifting the balance between the interests which should be protected.’ This transgenderism case is one example of the ECHR’s overreach, as denounced in this unprecedented letter.

‘The Czech Republic will not face European penalties, unlike Hungary’

It is likely that the Czech government will ignore the ECHR ruling. What will be the consequences? The ECHR is not part of the European Union. In practice, it has no power to impose economic or financial penalties. Therefore, the Czech Republic will not face actual penalties, unlike Hungary, which has faced EU sanctions since 1 January 2025, particularly over LGBT issues.

When the ECHR oversteps its mandate, it is legitimate for governments to ignore it. The European Convention on Human Rights contains no ‘LGBT rights’. The Convention only recognizes two sexes—male and female—as found in nature. It makes no mention of gender. It defines the right to marry as follows: ‘Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family.’

However, the interpretation of this Convention is entrusted to the ECHR, whose case law today often bears little resemblance to the original text. The ECHR considers the Convention to be ‘a living instrument which…must be interpreted in light of present-day conditions’ (Tyrer v United Kingdom, 1978). European judges rely on Article 8 of the Convention, which states that ‘everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life’, and they have stretched the meaning of ‘private and family life’ to cover virtually anything.

It is on the basis of private life that Tomáš must be recognized as a woman. It is in the name of family life that the ECHR compelled France to recognize parenthood in cases of children born via surrogacy—a ruling made over ten years ago. It is also in the name of private and family life that the ECHR recently ruled that any foreign criminal expelled from Europe must be guaranteed the right to return after just a few years. And it is again in the name of private life that the ECHR condemned Switzerland in 2024 for climate inaction, on the grounds that climate change would affect the private lives of Swiss citizens. The ruling against the Czech Republic on transgenderism is an indirect, implicit response to the letter from the nine governments. Through this decision, the ECHR reaffirms that it feels free to interpret the European Convention as it sees fit, regardless of what the signatory governments may think. This is the infamous ‘government of judges’.

Related articles: