If you had read the rest of my post you would have seen that it was a rhetorical question. You dismissed Cohen-Kettinis's research, not because you saw a flaw in the research itself, but because you didn't like what it might mean. People spouting "propaganda" can be dismissed by showing the error in their work. If they are shown to consistently engage in unprofessional behavior (e.g., lying, falsifying studies) then you could eventually dismiss them based on reputation. But, that is not the case with Cohen-Kettinis, you stated:
You dismissed the work based solely on the fact that she has an agenda. My response is: even if that is true (I don't know if it is), so what? If she continues to do her research in a professional manner and submit her co-authored publications to peer-reviewed journals then her agenda is irrelevant. (Just as a side note, showing that the origins of transsexuality aren't in the brain (which has NOT been done) does not mean that it is automatically a mental illness. There are still other possibilities.)
I don't know what any of the other things you mentioned have anything to do with this conversation, so I'm not going to answer them.
I do find it interesting that you ignored the first study I posted even though it wasn't headed by any of the researchers you dislike. It showed no significant difference in any area of the brain, except the putamen, between MtFs (prior HRT) and control males. This study was done using live tissue, as opposed to post-mortem.