@wabiwalden and... you're mistaken. You need to learn not to trust your assumptions so much.

Bodies might look, to you, like they're designed, but they aren't. Genitals aren't 'for' reproduction, and evolution doesn't care what people do with them.

And yes, assuming a teleology to how humans happen to grow IS to ascribe a religious / creationist design, which I'm afraid is incorrect.

@wabiwalden @benross You're arguing past the point I think. The reason the quoted text is transphobic is because 'man = person whose body is designed to do X' excludes trans men from the definition of man, and ditto for trans women.

Cis people's bodies may well 'be designed' for certain purposes (through evolution or what have you), but conceding that point or not doesn't undo the transphobia of the quoted text. Trans men are men, trans women are women, etc etc etc. Defining trans people out of their identified categories _is_ transphobia.

(Never mind that some cis people's bodies cannot perform the 'designed' specifications, but soit.)

@wabiwalden @benross

… This makes no sense to me. 'Trans men are not men' is transphobia. That's how this works.

You can very well argue that there is some essential difference between trans men and cis men, and I'd agree like 20% of the way to that point, but trans men are men, and cis men are men. They are all men. The only thing trans men aren't is cis or women.

Do you subscribe to the thought that sex≠gender?