(June 4, 2019 at 11:53 am)onlinebiker Wrote: If a person is born with a functional penis and testicles - then decides later in life that they are actually female - and surgically alters their body to appear that way - are they indeed female?
More and more people these days think so.
Some people think that the surgery isn' t even necessary - but simply living as a woman makes a person female - despite having male genitalia.
....
IF something as quantifiable as genitalia isn't an indication of the identification of sex - how can something as ambiguous as skin coloration be an identifier of race?
Shouldn't a person have the right to self identify what race they belong to?
And those of you - who this question angers (there will be several) - explain rationally why there is a difference.
Sex is not changeable, it is gender that is changeable, or as my sociology teacher likes to put it "Sex is what parts you're born with, gender's what's in your head". It's pretty simple logic from there. That's why i do believe trans people are encouraged to put the sex they're born as on medical forms, rather than the gender they choose to be.
Hope that clears some things up for you.
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
