>>2947951Uh-huh. Theres a little bit of a massive gaping flaw in your logic there, motherfucker.
What about when gene therapy gets to the point where you can change your DNA to female as well?
Will you still insist that someone isnt a female because they werent born that way, even if there was absolutely no way of telling the two apart? Even if someone looks, sounds, acts like, legally and genetically IS female?
Since this is an advance that is absolutely certain to happen at some point in the future, you better get started explaining your response.
Explain your answer.
If your answer is yes, you are basically acting irrationally. You care more about the original gender than anything that comes afterwards, but your reasoning has no logic behind it. It'd be like a person insisting a tree is still an acorn because it was at one point one.
If your answer is No, then the DNA not being female is your only objection to trans surgery. But the issue with that is that a couple of strands of amino acids seem outright insignificant. If everything they do/cause to be expressed has been changed (appearance, growth rates, hormones etc) why on earth would they be taken into account to determine gender?
Eat shit and die, im not gay, trans and i dont know anyone who is. But youre opinion is self-evidently stupid.
In a couple of decades your sort of opinion will be regarded the same as people who insist white people shouldnt marry coloreds.
Hear that? Thats the sound of the future laughing at how dumb your butthurt self sounds.
