IN a summary of the 63-page judgment, the court said Chief Justice Martin and Justice Pullin took the view that the essential question was whether the physical characteristics of the two transsexuals, including their internal and external genitalia, would identify them as a member of the male gender.
“In their (the majority) view, because each individual possessed none of the genital and reproductive physical characteristics of a male, and retained nearly all of the normal external genital characteristics and the internal reproductive organs of a female, they would not be identified as males by reference to community standards, despite the existence of some secondary male physical characteristics,” the summary said.
thewest.com.au: Appeal denies transsexuals gender change
The gender reassignment legislation, passed by State Parliament in 1999, allowed certificates to be issued when a person demonstrates a belief in the gender they have been reassigned, has adopted the lifestyle and “gender characteristics” [of] that gender and has had counselling.
During the appeal, lawyer Steven Penglis, representing the transsexuals, argued that the law did not require people to be sterile to have their gender reassigned and such a “fundamental and profound” requirement would have been made clear in the legislation.
But George Tannin, representing the State, said the transsexuals could not be legally recognised as men while retaining the “capacity” to have children.
