So the qualification is among surgeons who do SRS? Seems biased, and the fact that you quoted doctors advertising their services is only laughable as a debate tactic. Let's consult a medical dictionary.If you have a better source than actual surgeons with medical knowledge who perform SRS, then provide it.
Okay, provide a source. I've provided a credible source - the actual surgeons with medical knowledge who perform SRS. Your turn.
Vagina -- Medical Definition1. The part of the genital canal in the female, extending between the cervix of the uterus and the vestibule; it is an organ of copulation that receives the penis during sexual intercourse.
The source quoted is from the Stedman's Medical Dictionary. A vagina could be any shealthlike structure, but as far as human anatomy and medical definitions go it is as described, the structure between the cervix of the uterus and vestibule (vulva). There is no uterus in a MTF transsexual and no true cervix. It's essentially a created space to appear like a vagina but is not a proper vagina as far as medical definitions go.
And as shown a MTF transsexual is a male in sex, but may be a female in gender according to the ethics of some people. The DNA is male, the anatomical structures are formed from existing male body parts and there is no female reproductive function or female sex organs. From a scientific perspective I think it's absurd to say, biologically, that an XY individual that had a vaginoplasty/labiaplasty done a woman by sex even though they have no internal sex organs and unnatural vagina when their DNA also says otherwise, especially considering that they were born male and had aesthetic surgery done to change appearances. Such an argument may fly with some in the gender definition which is ethical, but scientifically you are incorrect from a biological perspective.It's not that I say sex should be defined by more than DNA. It's that sex is defined by more than DNA.
Notice I never said that people who are infertile due to a disease do not have "real" genitalia. I predicted that you would use this argument (which doesn't address mine). Re-read what I said. I stated that their sexual organs and reproductive function were removed/destroyed. Their infertility is not due to a disease, it's due to an unnatural intervention that has left them without sexual reproductive organs. A "real" penis or vagina is one that developed naturally, an XX woman who was born infertile still has real female organs, they just have a disease rendering them non-functional.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.
Also, provide a source that validates your disagreement with surgeons who actually perform the surgery.
I do not disagree that someone should be allowed to have the surgery. I disagree with the idea that biologically the surgery changes someone's 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.
So then were do genetics play a role? Is a man that has a vaginoplasty/labiaplasty now female by their biological sex? Your argument relies on aesthetics, how do you factor in DNA at all?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.