I thought it was a good read.<p>It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge that there are differences between biologically male and female people. Like the author expresses, this shouldn't be controversial, and the assertion is in no way anti-anything. How a person feels about their sexuality is a totally different thing, in a totally different category, from their biological gender. I liken it to arguing that there is no such thing as a person having a natural hair color, because they choose to dye their hair a different color.<p>It was also refreshing to hear the author express that females do indeed possess sexuality, and that human sexuality guides a lot of behaviours, including female behaviours, especially behaviours involving interfacing to the "other" gender.<p>Accepting the physical reality that humans are comprised of two sexual genders (with some small percentage of people having phenotypes that are intermediary between these two), and allowing for people to express their sexuality in whatever way they choose or whatever way feels right for them, are in no way mutually exclusive, or even antagonistic.<p>WRT the before-after photo, again I agree with the author in the sense that it depends on what you're looking at. For me, a biological male, while the person's body is certainly more muscular and thin in the after photo, I would have to say his face looks more naturally shaped and "attractive" in the before photo. The after photo face looks almost skeletal and stretched compared to the smiling nicely rounded face of the before photo. All of this is, of course, a matter of opinion.<p>Maybe (MAYBE) women are looking more at the cute face, and men are mostly considering which body they'd prefer to pin to the mat?