My Revelation

[GrandizerII]

Depends on the the metric for what constitutes a great baseball player.

In the case of gender, depends on what society uses as a metric for determining gender. The problem is that it's proven to be far more complex than just looking at one or two binary variables. We don't know what the characteristics exactly are of being a man, but we can all make observations that show it can't just simply be about genitals or chromosomes, and that environmental factors do play some part as well, however it does it.

If you can't come up with one non-physical characteristic of a man, then you have absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

I didn't say I can't come up with one potential non-physical characteristic of a man. If society deems you as a man based on various factors, that itself could be a non-biological characteristic. So if that's your only challenge to bring to the table, it's been answered here and elsewhere multiple times.

Combine that with other thing I've been saying multiple times (which you haven't bothered much to address), and you can't find a good solid basis to show why a transman cannot be a man.

If you can't agree, great. What is a man, Lek?