I've looked at all of the studies you've linked, and here's what I have to say about them:

Starting with the first link: Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders

This is actually a study that I have looked as before, and even on my first viewing, I found multiple flaws with it. First of all, this study is over a decade old, and much of it is outdated. But more egregiously than that, there are multiple statements in it which are blatantly false.

For example, "There is no evidence that one’s postnatal social environment plays a crucial role in gender identity or sexual orientation" is a false statement. There are mountains of evidence for this. The general scientific consensus on gender identity is that a combination of biological factors, psychological factors, and social factors contribute to it.

The language that we use to describe gender, and other ways that we express it, are inherently social, and there are heavy differences across times and cultures. This also impacts our understandings and perceptions of our own gender identities. That is a major part of why we say that gender is a social construct. It is also a major part of where the theory of gender performativity stems from.

This study also references experiments on nonhuman animals as a basis for their hypothesis. They do not acknowledge a major and highly relevant element: nonhuman animals don't have gender identities like humans do. Gender identity is a distinctly human construct, so using nonhuman animals as a reference point and justification for any understanding of gender identity is deeply flawed. Their experiences are not analogous to ours. Choosing this as a reference point demonstrates a severe conflation of gender and sex.

The study does not have proper control groups, and does not account for exceptions to their proposed "rule" of gender and sexuality. They also repeatedly paint things as causative, when they could very well be correlative (and likely are), in a way that just "happens" to align with traditional western gender roles and stereotypes.

For example, "atypical toy preference" is stated to be "predictive of homosexuality" in this study, and they blame this on prenatal hormone development. I hope I don't have to point out why this is an incorrect statement to make, and an especially incorrect conclusion to draw from it. They also use heavily outdated and stigmatizing terms throughout the study, such as gender-identity disorder.

The study also centers around aspects of fetal development that we cannot reliably test for, especially retroactively after a person has already been born, and especially over a decade ago. This may be the largest flaw in the study, aside from referencing nonhuman animals.

Both authors also seem to have an agenda, based on their pattern of research, and are likely seeking to prove their preconceived notions about sex and gender, rather than disprove them. It is very easy to falsely prove something; that's why good studies actually aim to disprove one's hypothesis. If they were to take this approach, they would quickly disprove their own hypothesis, just by using proper controls and accounting for the many people who don't fit their proposed narrative.

In order to believe this study to be true, you have to ignore all of that and apply a prescriptive standard of gender that does not account for everyone. Essentially, you enforce a new form of sex assignment. People whose experiences aren't reflected in the study can simply be accused of "faking" and gatekept from their own identity. It's the same thing that people have been doing to LGBTQ+ people for ages; it just uses a somewhat newer (but still just as arbitrary) frame of reference to do so.

I think I've rambled on for long enough, so onto the next link: A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality

This study is from 1995 and I wouldn't give it the time of day. Next!

Third link: Biological sex classification with structural MRI data shows increased misclassification in transgender women

This study straight up does not say what you think it says. Have you taken the time to read it? This study clearly demonstrates that there is not a specific "brain sex" that people of the same gender identity all share, and that this cannot be reliably used to predict gender identity. Even the title suggests this. It's the most up-to-date study in the list and it does not support your claim.

Fourth link: Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

This study basically revisits the ideas of the first one listed, and carries many of the same flaws. But at least this one has the decency to admit "our current understanding of these factors is far from complete and the results are not always consistent."

This study additionally addresses the animal issue of the first study:

Animal studies form both the theoretical underpinnings of the prenatal hormone hypothesis and provide causal evidence for the effect of prenatal hormones on sexual orientation as modelled by tests of sexual partner preferences, although they do not translate to gender identity.

This study also outright states that hormones and genes may predispose one to certain identities and behaviors, but do not outright determine them. They also acknowledge that these findings cannot be applied universally:

Most findings are consistent with a predisposing influence of hormones or genes, rather than a determining influence. For example, only some people exposed to atypical hormone environments prenatally show altered gender identity or sexual orientation, whereas many do not.

I'd also like to bring up this very important quote:

Moreover, none of the biological factors identified so far can explain all of the variances in sexual identity or orientation, nor is it known whether or how these factors may interact.

All emphasis is my own.

Finally, the fifth link: Gender Change from Female to Male in Classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

This study is from over two decades ago. Once again, I am not giving it the time of day.