Anyhooo, as I was saying earlier, this is a great medical breakthrough (if it works) for a MAN who has lost his "organ" due to an accident or disease or whatnot. This would not work very well for a woman who wants to "trans" into a man. A man already has seminal vesicles and all the necessary internal structures to make it work. A woman . . . not.
It's interesting that we always hear and see more cases of men transitioning or wanting to express as female than the other way. It's much easier to surgically substitute female parts cosmetically, though I doubt anyone can ever master the sensitive nerves and feelings (as researchers are still trying to figure out the female orgasm and how much is mental or physical). They may even figure out how to implant a fertilized fetus to grow to term in a man's body before they figure out the female orgasm.
The closest I've seen is a transgender man who had kept internal female organs intact, in order to birth a baby when the other partner couldn't. So basically, this case was heralded as the first pregnant man to give birth as the father, but by your definition ChrisL that person is still female and the mother.
Whaaat? It was a biological woman, not a "man." That is why he could still give birth. What did I say, Emily? I said it is biologically impossible for a man to become a woman, and surgery and hormones will not change that fact. There are many, many more differences between men and women than your "outward" appearance.
Yep, that's what I said, too ChrisL by the "gender identity" model then these people IDENTIFY as male/female by their personality and how they express themselves outwardly by appearance. And by yours and other standards, including Texas law, that standard goes by science and recognizes what is on the birth certificate
(and in sports, the doctors confirm sex by examination, which I would recognize also).
Exactly. the "gender identity" stuff is like a spiritual belief, and exercise. If you have some ritual or way of dressing and being and interacting
that is part of your BELIEFS, then you have a right to it in private, and in public to the degree people agree. But you can't force your religious
practice on people in public THROUGH GOVT. You can't PUNISH people for not accepting your religious practice where it imposes.
In cases where women were required to remove their burqas covering their faces to take Driver License photo's which are INTENDED
for ID purposes, for public safety reasons, then the religious freedom and ritutals stop there -- they cannot impose on public policy where govt has compelling interests otherwise.
So it is REALLY important to AGREE where to distinguish the physical birth/race such as someone born Arab or Middle Eastern in appearance because of their genetics
vs. dress such as wearing burqas BECAUSE OF THEIR ***BELIEFS*** (ie similar to people who present as the opposite gender because of their beliefs) that cover the body in ways that create conflict with safety policies. In this case, cross dressing conflicts with social norms and is argued as compromising safety of restroom policies barring men from women's facilities.
The argument that orientation is like race FAILS because orientation changes and race does not, which is predetermined even before birth by those two parents.
We are left with the arguments over whether transgender orientation is BEHAVIORIAL CHOICE
and where I would defend this is by including it and protecting it equally under religious freedom as a part of someone's
spiritual identity, process and path in life. So yes they have the right to it, INALIENABLY, and cannot be deprived of it by govt,
and by the same token neither can govt legislate or punish others for their beliefs about this either! It goes BOTH ways.