Amanda Banks writes in The West Australian:
Two female-to-male transsexuals should be able to keep female organs that allow them to bear children and still be legally recognised as men, it was argued in a landmark test of WA’s gender reassignment laws yesterday.
The Court of Appeal case is expected to set a legal precedent which could define the extent of medical intervention required for females to have their gender reassigned to male. The appeal was launched by Attorney-General Christian Porter to clarify reassignment legislation which came into effect 10 years ago.
It follows a State Administrative Tribunal decision which overturned a ruling of the Gender Reassignment Board of WA and authorised the men’s gender to be changed from female to male.
Lawyer Steven Penglis, representing the two men whose identities are suppressed, submitted yesterday that the law did not require people to be sterile for gender reassignment. Mr Penglis said such a “fundamental and profound” requirement would have been clear in the legislation. […]
But lawyer George Tannin, for the State, argued the men should not be legally recognised as males while retaining the “capacity” to have children. He said neither could be described as permanently infertile. Mr Tannin, who broadened the appeal amid concerns it should cover issues relating to the interpretation of the legislation in the public interest, submitted that the “gender characteristics” referred to in the laws included external genitals and internal organs.