>>40281389In other words, you have 2 options.
> 1. Sex is based on physiology at birth and is a historical characteristic that does not change.With this option, a person of any sex can have any phenotypical changes *after* birth, rendering sexual orientation labels based on sex totally worthless, because a "male" can literally have XX chromosomes, a cis vagina, breasts, a womb, and be perfectly physiologically female, but still a "male" because they once had male characteristics in the past. A male person attracted to this "male" would be classified as "homosexual" but what does that mean, what's the point of that classification? It's meaningless, that male is also attracted to a bunch of actual natal "females", not because of their sex, but because of their physiology.
> 2. Sex is solely determined by the current physiology of a person and is mutable.Here, since you can change sex, if I take a person who was born male and literally make them female (XX, womb, breasts, cis vagina, etc.) then attraction to them would be heterosexual anyway, so your point is moot again.
The only argument you could have is that medical tech is not at the point where actually changing sex under option 2 is viable, but we can clearly alter a person's physiology enough that trans people are functionally physiologically intersex. Is a man who is attracted to a natally intersex but very feminine person (not male or female but literally actually birth intersex) with a vagina a homosexual? or a heterosexual? idk that doesn't even fit into the sex based sexual orientation schema, which is why that schema is stupid and i say again try thinking in terms of phenotype instead, we would call that person gynephilic