During the discussion of the so‑called trans law, feminist groups and activist coalitions raised concerns that surfaced in the Alicante judicial scene. A man accused of abusing his ex-wife and the mother of his child claimed that he had changed his gender and, as a woman, could not be charged with gender‑based violence. This crime traditionally targets physical or psychological harm by a man against a woman within an intimate or familial relationship, regardless of whether the couple lives together. The assertion of gender reassignment was used as a legal defense in this case, underscoring a clash between evolving gender recognition and established criminal standards.
The defendant, who has cited gender reassignment, has repeated this argument in multiple proceedings, including a case involving a restraining order from the same ex‑partner. The same woman is involved across different processes, which has intensified scrutiny over how gender identity changes intersect with protective orders and criminal liability.
The Law for real and effective equality of trans people and guaranteeing the rights of LGBTQI people was approved on February 28 and took effect two days later. In section 3 of Article 46, the law states that the correction of the gender record and, where applicable, a name change, do not alter the legal regime that existed prior to the registry modification. This means that, for purposes under the Organic Law of December 28, 2004, on Comprehensive Protection Measures against Gender Violence, the previous framework remains applicable in relevant cases. The text emphasizes that a registry change does not automatically rewrite pre‑existing legal obligations or protective measures.
In a later provision, it is reiterated that the person who has updated the gender registry can be considered within measures designed to promote real equality. Positive action measures, especially those aimed at protecting women, may continue to apply under Article 11 of the Organic Law No. 2/2007 of March 22, in a way that reflects the date of entry into force of the registry change. The text clarifies that these measures do not retroactively alter legal situations that existed before the registry correction.
Despite the apparent clarity of these provisions, questions persist about how gender violence allegations are evaluated when gender identity changes are involved. The Alicante prosecutor, Gonzalo Pedreño, requested a meeting with his counterpart in the Attorney General’s Office to determine how to proceed before formal accusations are issued. This step highlights ongoing efforts to harmonize gender recognition with the enforcement of violence laws, and to ensure that legal processes accurately reflect the realities of both the accused and the alleged victims. The aim is to uphold the integrity of the legal system while respecting the rights and protections guaranteed to all individuals under the new framework, as well as the protections already in place for those affected by gender violence.
As the debate continues, observers note that several cases illustrate the tension between evolving gender identity recognition and existing protective mechanisms. The core issue remains how to balance individual rights with the need to safeguard victims of gender‑based violence, particularly in situations where personal identity changes may intersect with ongoing legal proceedings. The discussions in Alicante reflect broader national conversations about how to implement comprehensive protections without creating loopholes that could undermine the safety of those at risk. This moment invites careful scrutiny of the law’s practical application and the training of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement to ensure consistent, fair, and effective justice for all parties involved, within the framework established by the new legislation and prior protective measures. [Citation: Legal analysis of the trans law and its impact on gender‑based violence cases in Spain]