When he asks "can you be born gay" the response is "that is not the topic at hand, is it?"

When he asks (or states really, so that's an interesting choice he made) "so you don't think that you can be born female but in fact in terms of how you operate you are a man", her answer is great, but she should make him clarify what he means. The statement he is trying to put in her mouth makes no sense, and thus she should reject it on those grounds. What does "in terms of how you operate you are a man" mean? Why does he use "female" for the state of this hypothetical person at birth, but then switches to "operate" and "man". Did the infant he says is female operate as a female or as a woman until some other point in time when suddenly the operation of ... of what? the body? the brain? the what? whatever is operated was done as a man? What the hell does any of it mean? Make him clarify his ideas. Otherwise it's like letting bread rise full of air with no dough.

His crap falls apart though all on his own, when he thinks men can't have male-only spaces and this is only a fair turn of events.

When he says "might be"--- ugh, what a pathetic dude he is. He is an embarrassment.

Make him define "transition" and make him define "female" when he says men who transition are female. He's a clown. Never fight on their terrain. Never. Plato has Socrates always starting from a point of agreement. If this guy or any TRA activist can't define these terms is a useful way, they're done. We fail EVERY TIME we converse in the fuzzy and unclear manner they want us to, not because we lose any argument to them but because we lend credence to the BS they spew. Stop them on each term they try to make fuzzy and make them clarify and define their terms.