>>21519752>it is prudent to be thorough.you're not being 'thorough'. you're conflating a completely different species' evolution to bruce jenner chopping his dick off. take a step back and think for a moment about what your argument is on a fundamental level, and then talk to me about thorough.
>let's go back to the definitionyou mean the one I already tore apart? okay.
>point out it's male counterpart, which would be the same, but-uh huh. it's the same, but, you know, they don't work the same down there. sounds kinda familiar. maybe you can compare apples to oranges if you muddy the water enough.
> they are not a man at all, they are something else entirely. scientifically-scientifically, he has male DNA. if he committed a crime, and they tested his DNA with that found at the scene, they'd both read male. legally, he would be a man no matter what his neo-birth certificate says, or how dilated his neo-vagina is.
