| Comment | The problem with that is, who is defining sex that way?
I know that what you mean is the capacity to produce either, withstanding biological abnormalities or other issues, but when you phrase it as "the ability to produce sperm or ova" you do invite all sorts of questions about infertility, and we're back to "it's a soupy mix of stuff". It might seem facetious but its true, even that definition is fuzzy at times.
Nobody in the pro- or anti-trans argument is going around checking whether you had the chance to produce sperm or ova barring any complications that might result in infertility. They're talking about masculine/feminine body shapes and genetic traits, which is the general social model of sex, which then leads to the more complex issues I was raising.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter anyway. Just let trans people be trans people and live their life.
Once you get to the point of saying "but technically ..." I think it's a fair indicator you're arguing over something that doesn't matter. |
|---|