on the net and you won't have a problem finding whatever you're after as it has tons of hot various categories.
In other words, we can’t assume that the sex/gender distinction is perfectly objective because the assumptions we bring to the empirical study changes the nature of the conclusion.
If we start with the “radical” notion that trans women are really women then we will not come to the conclusion that XY chromosomes is a bodily trait only associated with males or that penises are “male” body parts.
Vaginas are not “female” because some men have vaginas.
XY chromosomes are not “male” because some women have XY chromosomes and some men have XX chromosomes.
This highly effective campaign was blasted all over media and ultimately led to the defeat of HERO.
The obvious thing to say here is that the act of a man putting on a dress and walking into the women's room with the explicit intention of causing a disturbance or attacking a woman is already illegal according to local law.
Under this schema, it becomes possible to describe a trans woman as having “male parts”, “male chromosomes”, etc. In the sex/gender distinction, "sex" is also described as one's "biological sex" or "physical sex" and "gender" is described as one's "gender identity" or "psychological sex". On my view, there is nothing “male” about a trans woman - the term "male" is simply not appropriate as applied to trans women.
They don’t have male body parts because only males have male body parts and on my view trans women are not males but females so any body part or physical characteristic they have is only appropriately described as female.
The anti-LGBT campaign basically used the tactic of painting trans women as dangerous sexual predators who are going to attack or rape women in women’s bathrooms - or they tried to argue that men will take advantage of the HERO rule to put on a dress in order to prey on women in bathrooms while claiming to be trans.