At this wake, it is disputable to fix the clash between legal and logical spheres of the case that relates to the right of a person to perceived sexuality. This case takes into consideration the implication of the verdict on the social spectrum of the transsexual with regards to his/her legal rights as a spouse especially in immigration apart from considering this as an issue of an individual’s intellectual right to choose a life of his desired sexuality.
A large majority of the people are able to identify the gender of a person from the secondary sexual indicators on his anatomical frame such as the body hair, breasts, voice or the size of the body. Exploration of the body’s primary gender detective indications like the DNA structure where the chromosome pattern reads XX for female and XY for male is necessary only for the forensic information on issues related to investigations absolutely legal. The issue arises on the conflict between the biological sex of a person and his psychological sex, which drives him on the transsexual way. Procedural history of the issues taken at the courts of law in various prominent countries exemplifies the legal disadvantages of undergoing a treatment aimed at changing the biological sex in pursuit of obtaining the psychological sex. WHO considers the case of transsexual surgeries as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), (which is red with provisions of Gender Dysphoria in UK). However, the term is different from a conglomerate appearance disparity resulting in identification of the gender of a person by appearance inflicted by cross-dressing, transgender behavior or distinguished congenital conditions.
Hormonal treatments targeting the sexuality alteration of individuals are scanned and monitored by the government of Hong Kong with several programs to deal with the GID issue. As the hospitals are surgically equipped with provisions for transsexual surgeries, they discharge the