They might "identify as a man" but be biologically female
Political correctness aside, if you don't have both X and Y chromosones you're not male
It's fairly easy to determine
here's what the question was not : what constitutes a biological male?
here's what the question was : what makes a ''Real Man''? (notice the use of quotation marks-- hence the collective response from progressive folks on here who felt the need to clarify that there is no such thing as a clear, objective definition for 'real man'-- a social construct, and nothing more.)
here's what the question was not : what constitutes a biological male?
here's what the question was : what makes a ''Real Man''? (notice the use of quotation marks-- hence the collective response from progressive folks on here who felt the need to clarify that there is no such thing as a clear, objective definition for 'real man'-- a social construct, and nothing more.)
here's what the question was not : what constitutes a biological male?
here's what the question was : what makes a ''Real Man''? (notice the use of quotation marks-- hence the collective response from progressive folks on here who felt the need to clarify that there is no such thing as a clear, objective definition for 'real man'-- a social construct, and nothing more.)
et voilà.
Sorry but a biological female isn't a "real man" just like an otherkin isn't a "real wolf" just because they identify as one.