Transsexual fights RAF dismissal rule
A TRANSSEXUAL has won the right to launch a challenge in the High Court against a decision to discharge her from the RAF.
M, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is seeking to have declared unlawful a Ministry of Defence policy that individuals who undergo a sex-change will not be recruited or permitted to remain in the Armed Forces. The test case follows recent attempts to overturn a ban on gays serving in the Armed Forces. These failed in the English courts and are due to go before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Ramby de Mello, appearing for M, argued in court that his client had been unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of sex, in breach of a European Union equal treatment directive. Applying for leave to seek a judicial review, he also argued that she was wrongly refused the right to seek redress before being discharged from the service three years ago and was entitled to reinstatement.
Mr de Mello described how M, aged 26, from the Norfolk area, joined the RAF in April 1990 as a male junior technician and was diagnosed some nine months later as a transsexual with "gender identity disorder". As a result she was downgraded and requested to take sick leave after rejecting the option of owning up to being a transvestite, in which case she could have kept her career. She made known to the RAF Medical Board that she wanted to undergo a sex-change operation and was told that if that was the case she would have to leave the services. M was dismissed in February 1993 on the grounds that "she was unable to meet service obligations due to a permanently reduced employment standard".
Mr de Mello said that in the cases involving gay personnel the courts had ruled that the European Equal Treatment Directive did not apply as it could not be said that the MoD policy discriminated on the grounds of sex. Mr de Mello argued that M, who had been directly discriminated against on the basis of her sexuality, was covered by the directive.
Mr Justice Buxton said the case raised questions that should be argued before a full hearing.
| 
