You're picking apart the male and female, with hair and mastectomies, etc. in the same way that trans people try and pick apart the sexes. This strikes me as the same nature of argument.

what? But I'm doing the exact opposite! I'm saying, a woman with a mastectomy is still a woman. TRAs would say that would make her a man. How is that the same at all? My entire point is that all those little details have no impact on what sex a person is. They're just individuated traits of a person. A bearded lady is still a lady. You are what sex you are, no matter what surgeries and specifics you try to change.

If I were capable of taking a man and making him indiscernibly anatomically, psychologically female, then our hitherto man could be an erotic target for other, heterosexual men. Perhaps if the secret were revealed, then the attraction would vanish--and I think this is the salient part of the conversation.

well, to me this does not make sense. How do you make someone "indiscernibly anatomically, psychologically female" but then not actually female? What does that even mean? To me, a person is what they materially are. If it were possible to turn someone female, then they'd be female, but it's not possible. At very least they would always have the psychology of having been male to start with (meaning, having had a male anatomy) but I simply do not think creating an entirely new human body to replace who you already are is a realistic or worthwhile enterprise.

Injecting hormones and doing cosmetic surgery is superficial, and ultimately when you get to know a person and get to know their body, you get to know their sex. That's part of intimacy and while you may hide your sex from acquaintances or aloof coworkers, you are not going to keep it from those you get to know better, and you are certainly not going to keep a partner in the dark.

I think we have to concede this point to the transgender crowd. Were the medical technology sufficient...

If the technology were sufficient to turn myself into a bat, I could be a bat. But it's not, and I'm not, and I don't know what it's like to be a bat. You can't just cut a few things off to turn into a woman or to stop being a man. There is a whole different layout, you are born with every egg that you will menstruate... and a boy is aware of his penis from a young age and that affects how he thinks too. They are two different paths.

it is not just the sex of a person that strikes our desire, or or dislike

I never said it was, but for those who have a limitation based on sex, that limitation applies in the same way to trans people - based on their sex, not their self identity.

Bisexuals have opposite-sex interests. Homosexuals do not, and this is what makes them special. I don't understand homosexuals as people with same-sex attraction. I understand homosexuals as people lacking opposite-sex attraction.

This is a very interesting thought, but I still think it's too sweeping. Some homosexuals specifically seek out "opposite sex presenting" members of their own sex, as in the butch-femme or big daddy/ bear to sissy type relations that have often been considered typical. Our stereotypes of gay men and lesbians have always been the GNC ones. If anyone was naturally going to look like they landed in the middle, they'd have been accused of being gay in the past. Now, we think they must be trans, and all too often, they will push the natural non-conformity all the way to the other side, so that at least they can conform with something even if it is now the wrong sex. Someone who would have been a masculine lesbian can now be a straight-appearing man! Except, of course, that she is not actually a man and might be caused health problems by any medical interventions.

But would you say she is more likely to be dating straight women or lesbians? Or would only bisexual women give her the time of day?