The Age reports that two West Australian female-to-male transgender people "have won the right to be considered men without having to undergo surgery on their reproductive organs" after winning an appeal in the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) against the WA Gender Reassignment Board's refusal to issue certificates recognising "the reassignment of their gender". The Board had been supported at an "early stage" of the appeal proceedings by the WA Attorney-General's office.
Certification in Australia is discussed in the 2009 HREOC Sex Files: The Legal Recognition of Sex in Documents and Government Records paper.
The Board - established under the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA) [here] - reportedly found against them "because they had female reproductive systems, which it said was inconsistent with being male". The Tribunal disagreed, indicating that both applicants "presented as, and appeared to be, males" and were infertile, irrespective of whether they had undergone surgery to alter their ovaries, uterus or vaginas, or had a penis constructed. A surgical procedure was not a requirement of the WA Act.
"Both applicants had undergone bilateral mastectomies and testosterone treatment as a result of which each had undergone extensive physical changes consistent with being male" and the Tribunal "accepted the evidence of each applicant that he intended to continue testosterone treatment for the rest of his life".
The Tribunal indicated that a female reproductive system was "a fundamental, although not essential, physical characteristic of being female" before commenting that it "was not persuaded that the presence of those organs alone, in circumstances in which there was no longer a capacity to bear children ... outweighed the other physical characteristics by virtue of which each applicant is now identified as male".
In 2008 the men's solicitor, Steven Penglis, said that he was aware of only one case in Australia where a former woman with reproductive organs was granted a certificate to be officially recognised as a man. That was in South Australia and has not been made public.
Penglis argued that denial of the certificates was a human rights issue, commenting that "They're desperate to have what they consider their true gender recognised. It consumes them, it's a real issue and the bottom line is, the board has effectively said no female can be reassigned a male without the requirement to go through a hysterectomy and that's not a mickey mouse procedure. It's almost as though the state's imposing a requirement of sterility."
He indicated that doctors had advised his clients not to have a hysterectomy because the surgery was too risky.
The Board's decision is not yet online and there appears to be no media release by the Attorney-General.
