An interesting perspective around the world.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#United_Kingdom

 

A person may be considered to be a transsexual person if their gender identity is incongruent with the sex they were assigned at birth, and consequently also with the gender role and social status that is typically associated with that sex. They may have, or may intend to establish, a new gender status that accords with their gender identity. Most legal jurisdictions recognise the two traditional gender identities and social roles, man and woman, but tend to exclude any other gender identities, and expressions. There is now a greater understanding of the breadth of variation outside the typical categories of 'man, and 'woman', and many self-descriptions are now entering the literature, including pan-gender, polygender, gender queer and non gender. Medically and socially the term 'transsexualism' is being replaced with 'gender dysphoria, and terms such as 'transgender people' and 'trans men and trans women' are replacing the narrow category of transsexual people.

This raises many legal issues and aspects of transsexualism. Most of these issues are generally considered a part of family law, especially the issues of marriage and the question of a transsexual person benefiting from a partner's insurance or social security.

The degree of legal recognition provided to transsexualism varies widely throughout the world. Many countries now legally recognise sex reassignments by permitting a change of legal gender on an individual's birth certificate. Many transsexual people have permanent surgery to change their body or semi-permanently change their body by hormonal means (known as sex reassignment therapy). In many countries, some of these modifications are required for legal recognition. In a few, the legal aspects are directly tied to health care; i.e. the same bodies or doctors decide whether a person can move forward in their treatment, and the subsequent processes automatically incorporate both matters.

In some jurisdictions, transgender people (who are considered non-transsexual) can benefit from the legal recognition given to transsexual people. In some countries, an explicit medical diagnosis of transsexualism is (at least formally) necessary. In others, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or simply the fact that one has established a non-conforming gender role, can be sufficient for some or all of the legal recognition available.

 

United Kingdom

 

Historically in the United Kingdom, transsexual people have succeeded in having their birth certificates changed and marriages conducted. This was first legally challenged in the 1960s, in the case of Ross Alexander, where the Court of Session ruled that the certificate change was legitimate for the purposes of inheriting a title, a decision later upheld by the Home Secretary. However, the case was held secretly and in a Scottish court, and there was not a publicly reported case in an English court until 1970.^[11] That year, in the case of Corbett v Corbett, Arthur Corbett attempted to annul his marriage to April Ashley on the grounds that transsexuals were not recognised by English law. It was decided that, for the purposes of marriage, a post-operative transsexual was considered to be of the sex they were assigned at birth.^[12]

This set the precedent for the coming decades. People who thought that they had existing valid marriages, turned out not to, and the previous unofficial changing of birth certificates was stopped.

Even so, transsexual people were able to change their names freely, to have their passports and driving licences altered, to have their National Insurance details changed, and so forth. A piece of legislation was also introduced to ban discrimination against transsexual people for employment.

In the 1980s and 1990s the pressure group, Press for Change, helped people take several cases to the European Court of Human Rights about this issue. In Rees v. United Kingdom, 1986, it was decided that the UK was not violating any human rights, but that they should keep the situation under review. In the 2002 case Goodwin v. United Kingdom, it was decided that the rights to privacy and family life were being infringed.

In response to its obligation, Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which effectively granted full legal recognition for transgender people.

In contrast to systems elsewhere in the world, the Gender Recognition process does not require applicants to be post-operative. They need only demonstrate that they have suffered gender dysphoria, and have lived in the 'acquired gender' for two years, and intend to continue doing so until death; there are strict rules governing the requirements for granting of a certificate.[

 

 

There is a list of countries and their own applicable laws, included in the link.  America is perhaps the most complicated in theory they have seperate laws for individual states,

Pursuant to the U.S. Const., Amend. 10, which reserves to the states (or to the people) all powers not assigned to the federal government, the legal classification of characteristic sexr to overrule any decision those non-state entities might make. Thus, the legal gender of a transsexual (as well as a transsex or intersex) individual in the United States does not have one answer but 56 answers – one for each state, the District of Columbia, and the five inhabited territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#United_States

 

• Transgender Law and Policy Institute– US information about laws and policy surrounding gender identity and gender expression.
• Instructions for changing name and sex on birth certificate – State-by-state instructions for US and Canada

 

 

Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland, it is not possible for a transsexual person to alter their birth certificate. A case was taken in the High Court by Dr. Lydia Foy in 2002, which saw her case being turned down as a birth certificate was deemed to be an historical document.^[2] Even so, it is currently possible for anyone to undertake a change of name either through common usage or through a deed of change of name, but this does not amount to legal recognition and transgender persons cannot marry or enter into a civil partnership in their acquired gender.

Dr. Foy had taken new proceedings to the High Court relying on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the Goodwin and 'I' cases. Her application was heard between 17 and 26 April 2007, and judgment was reserved. Judgment was given in the High Court on 19 October 2007. The Judge held that the Irish State had failed to respect Dr. Foy's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by not providing any mechanism for her to obtain a new birth certificate in her female gender. He indicated that he would grant a declaration that Irish law in this area was incompatible with the Convention. He also said he would have found that her right to marry under Article 12 of the Convention had been infringed as well if that had been relevant. On 14 February 2008. the Judge finally granted a declaration that sections of the Civil Registration Act 2004 were incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention. This was the first declaration of incompatibility made under the European Convention of Human Rights Act passed in 2003.^[3]

The Government appealed this decision but dropped its appeal in June 2010 and set up an advisory group of civil servants to make recommendations for new legislation. The advisory group's report was publshed in July 2011 ^[4] but there was controversy over some of its recommendations, notably that married transgender persons would have to divorce before they could be recognised in their acquired gender. At the launch of the report the Minister responsible stated that the Government would introduce gender recognition legislation as soon as possible.^[5] However, no legislation had been introduced by February 2013 and Dr. Foy issued new proceedings in the High Court, seeking a declaration that the State was obliged to issue her with a new birth certificate in her female gender, or, alternatively, that the State was in breach of the Irish Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights because it had failed to provide her with an effective remedy for the violation of her rights ^[6]

In Northern Ireland, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 of the United Kingdom applies, so a name and legal gender change on one's birth certificate is now possible.

Repblic of Ireland laws are basically founded on the laws of Rome, Vatican city during the reformation and the abolishion of the protestant churches.   Whilst Italy accepted revsions of decrimiinalising of homosexuality, and adopted a more humane criminal law system, Vatican city, is in fact a country within a country.  

Civil rights

Vatican City State does not have any civil rights provisions that include sexual orientation or gender identity

 

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness."^[7]

In 2000, the Holy See took the official position that transsexual people remain the same sex they were born with, and transsexualism is a mental disorder. However, the Vatican stated that "[a transgender] procedure could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will "cure" the patient's internal turmoil."^[8]

There are no known cases of AIDS or HIV infection in Vatican City. Internationally, the Vatican government has been a leading opponent of the use of condoms as part of any campaign to stop the spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.^[9] In 2006, the Holy See said it was conducting a scientific and moral study on the use of condoms in the fight against the pandemic.^[10]

Which enforces their condemnation of percieved view on the lack of social morals on the rest of the world, Catholism has a large influence on the laws and basic human rights in a lot of 3rd world countries,    their view of the pandemic outbreak of AIDS is those that sin in fornication shall reap their just rewards in the wrath of god.