In 2003, the Full Bench of the Australian Family Court reviewed all the scientific evidence about transsexuality, calling multiple expert witness from around the world. The decision has been mentioned in evidence before the SCOTUS.

This is from the Deakin Law Review:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLRev/2004/22.html#Heading437

At paragraph [248]: ‘In my view the evidence is, in essence, that the experts believe that the brain development view is likely to be true, and they explain the basis for their beliefs. In the circumstances, I see no reason why I should not accept the proposition, on the balance of probabilities, for the purpose of this case.’

At paragraph [252]: ‘The traditional analysis that they are "psychologically" transsexual does not explain how this state came about. For example, there seems to be no suggestion in the evidence that their psychological state can be explained by reference to circumstances of their upbringing. In that sense, the brain sex theory does not seem to be competing with other explanations, but rather is providing a possible explanation of what is otherwise inexplicable’.

At paragraph [253]: ‘In other words (as I understand it) the brain of an individual may in some sense be male, for example, though the rest of the person’s body is female’.

At paragraph [265]: ‘In my view the argument in favour of the “brain sex" view is also based on evidence about the development and experience of transsexuals and others with atypical sex-related characteristics. There is a vast literature on this, some of which is in evidence, and I can do no more than mention briefly some of the main points’.

At paragraph [268]: ‘It seems quite wrong to think of these people as merely wishing or preferring to be of the opposite sex, or having the opinion that they are’.

At paragraph [270]: ‘But I am satisfied that the evidence now is inconsistent with the distinction formerly drawn between biological factors, meaning genitals, chromosomes and gonads, and merely "psychological factors", and on this basis distinguishing between cases of inter-sex (incongruities among biological factors) and transsexualism (incongruities between biology and psychology)’.

At paragraph [272]: ‘In my view the evidence demonstrates (at least on the balance of probabilities) that the characteristics of transsexuals are as much “biological” as those of people thought of as inter-sex’.

Some will continue to ignore the autopsy results. They will continue to ignore the fMRT imaging data. They will continue to ignore the experts on neurology, the surgical success rate, and any other data makes their comfy, simplistic world-view untenable.

All we can do is to continue gathering evidence (some of which is bound to contradict our own cherished beliefs, but that's Science), and to present it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no-one is entitled to their own facts.

Zoe, nice to see you. But, honey, in a addition to being Australian, you're also straight (did you forget?), so there's another way you won't be affected.

Ah.. well... yes. I did forget. It didn't seem important, we're talking about Human Rights after all.

Well, some of us are, anyway. Others seem to think that Sexual Orientation should affect that, privileging some, denigrating others.

And I never said I was a bright Rocket Scientist.

*SIGH*