During Wednesday night's first Democratic presidential debate, San Antonio mayor Julián Castro stated he supports taxpayer-funded abortions for "transgender women." "I don't believe only in reproductive freedom; I believe in reproductive justice," he said. "And what that means is just because a woman, or let's also not forget someone in the trans community — a trans female — is poor, doesn't mean they shouldn't exercise that right to choose."

It was not immediately clear whether Castro simply misspoke and made an unwoke gaffe by supporting abortion for a "trans female" — that is, a biological man who identifies as a woman — or had reached some transcendent level of wokeness by supporting tax-funded abortions in biologically impossible circumstances.

Let's assume, however, that Castro didn't misspeak and that he indeed supports taxpayer-funded abortions for "trans women," which is most likely the case. Why would Castro want taxpayers to fund something that is currently biologically impossible? Perhaps a "trans female" is a woman who becomes a man? Not at all. Although progressives are constantly altering and updating terms relating to sex and sexuality to fit their current political narrative, science be damned (he who defines the terms controls the argument), the latest liberal terminology defines a "trans female" or "trans woman" as a man who "becomes" a woman.

According to Wikipedia, which is the gatekeeper of all things progressive:

A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Trans women may experience gender dysphoria and may transition; this process commonly includes hormone replacement therapy and sometimes sex reassignment surgery, which can bring immense relief and even resolve gender dysphoria entirely. Trans women may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, or identify with other terms (such as queer).

What does it mean to be "assigned male at birth"? According to Wikipedia:

Assigned male at birth (AMAB): a person of any age and irrespective of current gender whose sex assignment at birth resulted in a declaration of "male". For example, when an attending midwife or physician announces, "It's a boy!" Synonyms: male assigned at birth (MAAB) and designated male at birth.

In other words, based on Wikipedia's definition (which is based on a book called Traversing Gender: Understanding Transgender Realities by Lee Harrington), being "assigned male at birth" has nothing to do with a baby's sex, but is simply an arbitrary designation by the physician delivering the child. Nature doesn't "assign" the child; humans do. Hence, a penis, testicles, and an XY chromosome don't equal male. Likewise, a uterus, ovaries, and an XX chromosome don't equal female.

Nevertheless, it seems that a "trans woman" is a male — a person born without a uterus and ovaries — so why would this person ever need access to a government-funded abortion?

There is only one far-fetched scenario where Julián Castro's call for taxpayer-funded "trans female" abortion would make any kind of sense, and that is in the case of a uterine transplant. Currently, uterine transplants have successfully been performed only in women (human beings with an XX chromosome). In December of 2017, a woman who'd received a uterine transplant gave birth to a baby for the first time in the United States. Although there's been some talk of a man (a human being with an XY chromosome) receiving such a transplant, the procedure would be extremely risky and dangerous.

According to Live Science:

Uterus transplants are "still highly experimental," said Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics and head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's School of Medicine. This means that the procedure is still being studied for its safety and effectiveness in women, and it is performed only as part of experimental trials. Because of the additional research needed to understand the risks of the procedure and its effect on the fetus, performing a uterus transplant on a man right now would not be responsible, he said.

Then there's the matter of the extensive medical preparation. The medical magazine Stat had this to say about the grueling nature of the procedure:

It is theoretically possible to transplant a uterus into someone who was born male. But the body would need a lot of preparation. Gender reassignment surgery would be much more involved, for one thing. As with traditional male-to-female surgery, doctors would have to create a vaginal canal. But they would also need to make space for the uterus. That would require widening the pelvic inlet, which is substantially narrower in men. After all that, the patient would need about a year to heal before undergoing the womb transplant — which in itself is quite an ordeal. The first one performed in the United States took nine hours.

Now, let's suppose, years in the future, when science has worked out all the bugs, that a man decides to undergo all the risks and grueling preparation involved with a uterine transplant (instead of simply adopting, which would be a lot easier, safer, and more sensible). And let's say it works, and he finally gets pregnant. And let's say he wakes up one morning and thinks, Hmm, I don't think I want this baby after all. I want to get rid of it, and I want the government to pay for it.

In this case, I guess Julián Castro's support for transgender abortion contains some semblance of warped logic. Not that this highly implausible and as yet scientifically impossible scenario is worth mentioning in a presidential debate when you are already limited by time and must choose your words wisely. And not that there are other more practical, more pressing issues to be dealt with. But that's what you get from a political party that wants to fund the kinds of procedures that could put babies inside men's bodies, while simultaneously fighting for laws that would allow these same babies to get ripped out again.

Image: Commonwealth Club via Flickr.