If you have a better source than actual surgeons with medical knowledge who perform SRS, then provide it.Are you seriously arguing using the wording of a few surgeons that are advertising their transgender surgery services as if this is an absolute definition? They can claim all that, or "say that they" create a vagina, labia, clitoris and all those other things but that doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is altering current organs to appear like different ones. They do not have the function of a natural vagina, they are a modified penis that simply looks like one. What they are are creating imitations. I could go into more graphic detail but I'll spare the forum that. The transsexual vagina is an imitation vagina typically created from the penis, scrotum, and possibly other tissues from the body grafted in. Look this up for me, does the transsexual vagina keep a pH relative to a real vagina? What about the Bulbourethral gland/Bartholin's gland? How about prostatic fluid/vaginal fluid? It may look like a vagina, but it doesn't function as one and is lacking anatomical features you may not see.
Okay, provide a source. I've provided a credible source - the actual surgeons with medical knowledge who perform SRS. Your turn.Also, the fact that I am not an SRS performing surgeon doesn't negate any of what I've argued.
It's not that I say sex should be defined by more than DNA. It's that sex is defined by more than DNA.Let's establish a few things: You say you look at defining sex with a more "whole" picture by looking at DNA and genitals/anatomy.
Not every person who is born a woman or a man is born with full, functioning genitalia. Even further, some men and women get their parts of their genitalia removed over their lifetimes for medical or other reasons. Their penises and vaginas are still "real." As a result, full, functioning genitalia are not a requirement of a person having "real" genitalia. Your argument is erroneous.It has been shown that a transsexual's DNA remains unchanged from their birth DNA. Their genitals are formed from their birth genitals and lack the normal reproductive functions of natural genitals for their desired sex. What they have is an imitation created by surgical means to appear aesthetically like a vagina or penis. These imitation organs lack the proper physiological functions of natural, real sexual organs created through development as instructed by the person's DNA.
Also, provide a source that validates your disagreement with surgeons who actually perform the surgery.
Correct.If you took a DNA sample from a transsexual the results will say that they are their birth sex.
If reproductive function is the qualification for "real" genitalia, then infertile or impotent men and women don't have "real" genitalia. That argument is absurd. Therefore, your argument is absurd.If you look at reproductive function you would find that they have no reproduction function, that was removed/destroyed when their imitative reproductive organs were created.
I have specifically stated that sex includes DNA which means that I've done the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of. How dishonest. Your problem is that I'm not paying exclusive attention to genetics and that I'm not taking your word over the word surgeons who actually perform SRS. But like I said, if you have a better source than the actual surgeons who perform SRS, show me.You are ignoring genetics and placing your definition on aesthetics and the advertisements of a few surgeons that are advertising their surgical services. Biologically their sex has not been changed. You can argue that the ethics of their gender has been changed, but their sex remains the same.