The first pregnant man was not a man, thus he is not the first pregnant man II

==Rebuttal== First, you can get testosterone but you will only look like a man, not become one. Also, sex reassignment does not actually change your sex. Sex was already defined as predetermined biological category of male or female defined by internal and external organs as well as chromosomes. The key thing here, is the chromosome. It cannot be changed. As you did not propose alternate definitions to male or female I will operate that you agree with the ones I presented. I agree that simply taking testosterone does not make you become a man. I also agree that the sexual reassignment in its self does not changes your sex. Where we seem to part ways is if one can change ones sex. Going back to your definition of sex it would seem that if any changes to “biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs” would constitute a change of their sex. This to me seems to be a sloppy definition, as a simple accident involving damage to one’s sexual organs could result in one being defined as something other than what they were originally classified as. Even the definition of male seems vague, in that, if one does not produce sperm it could be argued that one is not male or if one cannot bear children they are not female. In cases, such as this, where things are not “black or white” it is best to rely on experts in related fields. Our court system has heard arguments from both sides and have decided that Thomas is a male. On chromosomes specifically, no evidence has been presented that Thomas is male or female genetically. Pro has claimed that Thomas has female chromosomes but has not provided any evidence to that being a fact. As sex and gender identity is an active area of research and not fully understood, I believe that it is possible that Thomas is genetically different from persons that are defined as female. I am not claiming this as fact, just simply a possibility that may bear fruit as we understand genetics more fully. "sex marker from female to male " What puzzles me here is the fact she did not get a different sex, just a different gender yet it's called a sex marker. Gender and sex ARE different. Sex as you defined earlier is "Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs." So if one simply changes the hormonal profile it would change what the sex is. I’ll try to express this another way. (SEX = C+H+I+O) now, if one changes any of the variables it would change the result. Ie. a different answer for sex. Using this methodology as I have previously stated is sloppy in my opinion and we should rely on our experts and legal system to bring clarity to complicated issues. “If we look at the definition of male and female it would seem that Thomas would fall under the female definition instead of the male" Admitting to being wrong? I see no admission nor anything that could be construed to be one. I am expressing that is would “seem” that Thomas would fall under the female definition if we are to think in simple terms. I go on to discuss how we define male and female have functional issues. Ie. if one cannot bear offspring or produce eggs than that individual is not female. “As a society though, we life under a set of laws that we all operate under. Legally speaking, Thomas was a male at the time his children were born. So according to the rules that we live by Thomas as male at the time his children were born Thomas was not a male at the time his children were born. Her sex is female, making her of the female sex, however she may call herself a man but only to the degree of being of the male GENDER not sex. The underlined section is commonly referred to an unsupported claim. Pro makes the claim that Thomas was not a male at the time his children were born, yet Pro does not provide any supporting evidence, logic or even a supporting statement. I stand by my previous argument, that, Thomas using medical and legal mechanisms changed from female to male. "Legaly speaking, Thomas underwent a “valid sex change(1)” which does not require sterilization. Also if we were to examine Thomas’s birth certificate or driver’s license it would have sex as male" However, her sex is female, If I said I was Asian when I'm white, which one would I be? It may sound silly or odd, but this is actually a serious question. Again this is not a rebuttal, Pro stating that “her sex is female” does not make it so. It is a fact that Thomas had a “valid sex change” and that sex change did not require sterilization. To you question, as white is not a race, I would just assume the person stating this to me is a little confused. I have heard people of African descent refer to “Asians” and “Hispanic’s” as “Caucasian’s” so maybe there is something to this. "This means that according to the rules we live by, it has been decided that Thomas is a male." Just because the government says it's legal it doesn't mean these two things This is not a simple matter of the government declaring Thomas to be male. As a society we have formed a legal system, we have passed and changed laws, we have experts in various fields and when all of this is combined the result is Thomas is male. He has undergone medical changes, that using the definition that you provided, changes the result of sex. I agree that this alone make Thomas male, but it makes it harder to fit Thomas in to one of the male/female boxes. As I have said a few time now, Thomas using the medical and legal tools available has legally changed from female to male. It should not go unnoticed that Pro never disagrees that Thomas is legally a male. Nor did Pro disagree that the law is “the system of rules” we use. If I were the assuming type, I could reasonably assume that Pro agrees that Thomas is in fact male under the rules we live by. I it's true and II it's morally right. Science is often mad at the government for defining things that aren't true. Like adding 10 sexes when there are only two. Unsupported statements of fact and should not require a response. I see you used wikipedia, I'd like to state it is okay to use wikipedia, but don't let it be your only source. Glad to hear. In parting, thank you funnycn for creating this debate. More so, thank you for actually arguing for your position in an honest and respectful manor.