Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
What I mean is, whenever somebody brings up "biological sex" to justify their subconscious bias around gender transition they usually don't know enough biology to try to define it. Male and female are two general categories that don't fit every case, and there's a lot of grey areas in between. (A number of other cultures have recognised this before too, not just a few weirdos on the internet.) The superficial differences that we perceive between male and female animals aren't actually all that significant and it's pretty easy to change some of the most significant parts. And there's not much point worrying about what something used to be vs what it is currently or you might as well worry about the parts of your body that used to be dinosaur poop or whether adults are still babies or even whether people are made of part of their mothers, which frankly is kind of gross. We're all just talking mud that's hallucinating slightly different versions of reality, why put so much stock in such an oversimplified concept as binary sex?

I can't comment on politics on this forum but I'm definitely somebody's worst nightmare. A stoned millennial biologist in the midst of an existential crisis and questioning the assumptions of the system.
Whether all that is true, none of it is true, or somewhere in between doesn't really matter. People are still entitled to choose not to sleep with someone without having to justify it.

Their underlying reasons may not (will usually not be) logical, may be seated in personal biases etc etc, but that's ok. That is as true for a preference not sleep with trans people as it is for a preference for a more muscular or less muscular partner or almost anything else.