>You need a lot more practice reading if you think this was a wall of text. You need a lot more practice writing if you think this wasn't a wall of text. >If

>You need a lot more practice reading if you think this was a wall of text. You need a lot more practice writing if you think this wasn't a wall of text. >If this definition of "male" is simply "can't get pregnant" Males definitionally cannot. Humans are gonochoric mammals: only females can become pregnant. >aside from all the thigs wrong with that, it also means you'd have to accept that if and when a womb gets transplanted into someone who was born without one, they changed gender. Nothing was wrong with my statement of biological fact. Only human females can become pregnant. There's no changing from male to female. Uteruses are human female reproductive organs. Ovaries are human female gonads. >Worse for you: it is trans men who have the capacity pregnant, though only in certain conditions that I'm not qualified to enumerate. Trans-men are human females. >If they have a hysterectomy as part of their bottom surgery, no pregnancy, so do you accept they're men afterwards? They are still human females, just surgically altered human females. >Me, I prefer to go by simple (clothed, even) exterior phenotype, it doesn't require invasive scans or being a creep. Me, I prefer to go by simple (factual, even) biology, it doesn't require invasive delusions or being a creep.