Re Kevin (validity of marriage of transsexual) [2001] FamCA 1074.
3.
MillsEithne and McConvillJames, ‘The case of Kevin and Jennifer: Transsexual Marriage in Australia’ (2002) (76) 8LIJ69, 72.
4.
Goodwin v UK [2002] 2 FCR 577 and I v UK [2002] 2 FCR 613.
5.
In Re The Marriage of Michael Kantaras v Linda Kantaras [2003] 98–5375CA.
6.
See Re Kevin, above n 2 particularly 330.1.
7.
The Attorney General's acceptance of the ratio in Re Kevin was confirmed by Senator Coonan on his behalf by way of a reply to a question from Senator Nettle on the point: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 12 August 2004, 26148–9. A further answer to a supplementary question from Senator Nettle saw acceptance of the continuing validity of a heterosexual marriage where one of the parties subsequently undergoes sex affirmation surgery: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 9 February 2005, 82.
8.
Attorney General of the Commonwealth v Kevin & Jennifer and the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2003] FamCA 94 (‘Kevin and Jennifer’).
9.
Re Kevin, above n 2, 272.
10.
W v W [2001] 2 WLR 674.
11.
Kevin and Jennifer, above n 8, 231.
12.
Marriage of C and D (falsely called C) [1979] 5 Fam LR 636.
13.
Corbett v Corbett (orse Ashley) [1971] P83.
14.
Kevin and Jennifer, above n 8, 232.
15.
Ibid235.
16.
Ibid 326. Nevertheless, it needs to be emphasised that neither biological factors nor social factors alone were persuasive. The test formulated by Chisholm J was an inclusive test that also considered issues of self-perception (psyche), his status according to other Australian laws, and especially the hormonal and surgical steps he had taken to ensure he no longer functioned as female.
