Are you homosexual respectively engaging in a sexual relationship with a respective transgender?

You being a male engaging in a sexual relationship with a transgender female , are you homosexual?

A sex change, changes what exactly?

The outside, not the inside. Are you homosexual respectively engaging in a sexual relationship with a respective transgender?

Unless scientists have figured out how to transplant genes, chromosomes and D.N.A., you're not completely a single sex 

Where can we draw the line as a basis for what sex a person is?

Is it just a feeling, identity election or something inherit?

I guess we have a hybrid situation. Half a sex. So part of the sex that's the same as yours is homo.

Are you homosexual respectively engaging in a sexual relationship with a respective transgender?

You say "if a guy looks like a girl". Are you saying if a guy which is male looks like a girl which is a female but is still actually a male, are you saying this wouldn't be a homosexual relationship being you're a male getting involved with such a person?

Is what only constitutes gender solely a look?

What exactly constitutes sex?

You say no you're not homosexual so this means you're male.

If genes and chromosomes don't matter then why do these elements create the physical makeup of a gender?

Do you not know these are the building parts to development of everything else physically?

Do you not know XX is the identity of the chromosome that patterns for females?

Saying chromosomes don't matter is like saying our lungs don't matter. We need chromosomes in order to complete our organic development like we need our lungs for the ability of breathing.

Are you saying the line is drawn for what a sex someone is by their desires?

Just trying to be specific and clear .

"Its a wish, a feeling."

Is what someone physically is existent or non existent?

Yes it is. I'm going to do just like how you respond but in opposition.

A person that has a working uterus identifies as male, you that are female that engages in a sexual relationship with them, this would not be a homosexual engagement would you say

You're male, he's all girl you say. Is "he" in reference to the male gender?

Is a male engaging in a sexual relationship with a male homosexuality?

So either of these two can classify you under homosexuality.

Cis-women have both of these characteristics. Physical traits and depending on whom you're sexually active with are all physical properties which classifies your engagement of sexuality.

A male in a sexual relationship with another male that looks female, is that heterosexuality?

So these elements don't matter in creating our physical makeup. Are you being dishonest or ignoring the fact?

Well this explains your last response. Now that you do know, will you retract the statement of chromosomes not mattering?

"No. Many males have XX chromosome. "

Ok why?

I'll explain so that there is understanding. Human sexual organs are classified into two separate categories. That's all. Like how cars and trucks are classified differently. Now people may choose to call things what they will. Such as a person referring to their truck as a car. It is interesting how I never hear a car being referred to as a truck. Likewise a baby is never referred to as an adult. I guess a line is drawn somewhere or else there'll be just too much confusion. 

But we have separate classifications for a reason. So we can properly identify when we communicate what we're talking about.

You say your friend is coming down to meet me, she'll meet me. I'm waiting and waiting and all I see are males walking by. I don't think to ask " am I meeting you?" because you identified your friend in a specific classification that doesn't match. Then you tell me "oh she's a she because that's how he identifies". Now you could of communicated all this initially but you'd still have to identify the actual physical classification . Then you can throw in the details about the personal preference on identity. But the basis can't be just thrown away. We get too far away from the foundation of the drawn line, we end up in a bunch of confusion and problems as illustrated in the example I gave.

Then why does the "Y" part of any chromosome exist?

It wouldn't exist at all.

There can be disorders in genes and mutations. Testosterone, estrogen levels out of order, hormones. There are chromosome disorders as well as physical ones.

There has to be a XX chromosome to have a healthy fully developed female.

I'm confused. Why would the line not be drawn before what somebody desires what sex to be such as at the genes which would give to select hormones to setup certain desires to be the sex you are and attracted to the correct sex?

That we can as much agree on because it's only the truth. That is if you don't reject truth.

Oh simple. Both persons have female organs, the uterus. To females engaging in sexuality is homo. Now you can call it something different because the two themselves call themselves something different. But then it's just a circus of semantics and bewilderment.

This is what I'm saying about the foundation of things. As you may notice, society just deviates and deviates and deviates from the order of things just mixing everything around according to personal whim. Well it is what is it but to keep things from getting too far out of view, too far gone and extreme losing touch, we refer back to actual physical reality. Gender has become a social construct like so called race and everything else and being trans racial.

Like I say, it is what it is. You can change your name, modify your body. But when the questions come up about your originality and many of those original roots can't be uprooted, that's the truth and if you're for truth, you'll give truthful answers