How this has eyez.

How i see it endz.

So far as I can see. There is a great "divide" between what constitutes both physically and considerablly - scientifically - a 'man' vs a 'woman'.

In the case of what defines a man over a woman. The law of the universe should start the following:

I forsee this ultimate debate ending based on the following evidence:

A man biologically will always be defined as that. A man. A woman biologically will always be defined by that, her female reproductive system not found in the male genome.

If, for example, a Male biologically should choose to suit up and dress up and mutilate himself and aquire a fake set of breast looking items, this is still in all theory of mathematics, physics, science and arguably religion.. defined ultimately as still a male but in disguise as not.

So, my statement ends here. Should a male seek it worthy to dress up as not itself it cannot identify as a female but rather a male in 'master of disguise' of sorts.

Thus rests my case where here in lies, legally speaking, a male cannot identify as anything but their biological definition. And a name or nickname or identity other than what mathematically, physically, scientifically or considerably religiously occurs, is that in itself a defined misnomer.