Well, first, we need to *really* unpack that question, because it’s riddled with assumptions I simply can’t accept at face value.

What do you mean by *true*? Truth isn’t a binary between fact and fiction—it’s a complex interplay between *objective reality* and *narrative coherence*. Just stating something doesn’t make it true in any meaningful epistemological sense.

Then there's *had*. Are we talking about a single moment? A long-term connection? Or *had* in the possessive sense, which implies ownership and reduces a person to an object—precisely what the radical left criticizes the so-called patriarchy for doing.

Now, *sex*. That term is far from straightforward. Are we referring to *biological sex*, grounded in dimorphic reproductive structures? *Gendered behavior*, shaped by evolutionary pressures? Or the *act* of intercourse itself, which is interpretively loaded and far from simple? If you're going to accuse me of something, at least be clear on *what*.

As for *transsexual*—that opens another set of questions. Are you referring to someone post-transition? Or someone who *identifies* as such? Because under modern ideology, identity is subjective and cannot be questioned without incurring accusations of bigotry. But if we must accept identity as *true*, does that not make the experience indistinguishable from being with a biological woman? And if so, why even pose the question?

So before I *even begin* to answer, we need conceptual clarity. What you’ve done—deliberately or not—is set up a linguistic trap wrapped in ideological presuppositions. And I *will not* engage in that kind of dishonest discourse.