Keep saving their asses. They clearly believe a male or a female becomes nothing (not male or female) if they remove their organs or haven't reached puberty. You would know this if you looked into the previous post: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/7y4d/gc_why_do_you_think_its_not_biologically/tpgr

A child has an immature reproductive system. They have the potential to become sexual creatures, but pre-puberty, their sex is not yet developed. Does that mean they are sexless? I don't really know, and the point is that it doesn't really matter. You can say they have a sex but it's nascent or you can say they don't have one yet, as clearly it's distinct from once it becomes an active system. I don't think it's terribly controversial to speak that way. But what you can't say is that they'll start as a boy and turn into a woman.

They think because children have no developed reproductive system and can't have sex like an adult does, they have no sex, they are not male or female and "it's not controversial to say that". "They have no sex" doesn't mean "they have no sexuality".

The word unsex has different meanings. One means a female or male becomes nothing after castration, the others, well, I don't know what the heck ‘these creatures were vaguely female but unsexed by their drab greasy overalls and trousers’ is supposed to mean.