A 1970 judicial decision—Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1970] 2 All English Reports 33 (probate, divorce, and admiralty division) (Ormrod J):
Since marriage is essentially a relationship between man and woman, the validity of the marriage in this case depends, in my judgment, upon whether the respondent is or is not a woman. I think, with respect, that this is a more precise way of formulating the question than that adopted in paragraph 2 of the petition, in which it is alleged that the respondent is a male. The greater, of course, includes the less but the distinction may not be without importance, at any rate, in some cases. The question then becomes, what is meant by the word “woman” in the context of a marriage, for I am not concerned to determine the “legal sex” of the respondent at large. Having regard to the essentially hetero-sexual character of the relationship which is called marriage, the criteria must, in my judgment, be biological, for even the most extreme degree of transsexualism in a male or the most severe hormonal imbalance which can exist in a person with male chromosomes, male gonads and male genitalia cannot reproduce a person who is naturally capable of performing the essential role of a woman in marriage. In other words, the law should adopt in the first place, the first three of the doctors’ criteria, i.e., the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests, and if all three are congruent, determine the sex for the purpose of marriage accordingly, and ignore any operative intervention. The real difficulties, of course, will occur if these three criteria are not congruent. This question does not arise in the present case and I must not anticipate, but it would seem to me to follow from what I have said that the greater weight would probably be given to the genital criteria than to the other two. This problem and, in particular, the question of the effect of surgical operations in such cases of physical inter-sex, must be left until it comes for decision. My conclusion, therefore, is that the respondent is not a woman for the purposes of marriage but is a biological male and has been so since birth. It follows that the so-called marriage of September 10, 1963, is void.
I must now return briefly to counsel for the respondent’s submissions. If the law were to recognise the “assignment” of the respondent to the female sex, the question which would have to be answered is, what was the respondent’s sex immediately before the operation? If the answer is that it depends on “assignment,” then if the decision at that time was female, the respondent would be a female with male sex organs and no female ones. If the “assignment” to the female sex is made after the operation, then the operation has changed the sex. From this it would follow that if a 50 year old male transsexual, married and the father of children, underwent the operation, he would then have to be regarded in law as a female and capable of “marrying” a man. The results would be nothing if not bizzare. I have dealt, by implication, with the submission that because the respondent is treated by society for many purposes as a woman, it is illogical to refuse to treat her as a woman for the purpose of marriage. The illogicality would only arise if marriage were substantially similar in character to national insurance and other social situations, but the differences are obviously fundamental. These submissions, in effect, confuse sex with gender. Marriage is a relationship which depends on sex and not on gender.
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A 1970 Judicial Decision,’ New Reform Club (Oct. 12, 2025, 9:41 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/10/a-1971-judicial-decision.html>;
