badecker.. its not..

you have been listening to the silly idiots of the freeman/sovereign cult of the 1990's that have been getting things wrong and debunked soo many times. you have no clue

setting up a trust is more complicated then getting married

if you wanna put a baby in it and have a contract... put a ring on it (marry it)
your religion knows this

if you want a contract involving the childs welfare and future without marriage you will have to wait until its born and ASK to be put on the birth certificate.. (you cant demand it, and its not default your power or control at conception) its the mothers power and control and decision

sex is not a formation of a trust of a baby
sex consent is different to cenceiving a baby consent..

you do know that a gestating foetus is on life support for approximately the first 24-26 weeks.. unable to survive on its own without the life support(womb)
so do you atleast consider the rights and choices of that foetus lay with the women that is incharge of the life support(her own womb)

next thing is who is to say of the condition of the foetus or its life prospects.. not every foetus is the same and not always going to have a productive life
what about foetuses with genetic or congenital diseases whereby it will be born impaired if carried to full term

what do you feel of the scenarios of foetuses under 24weeks with impairments?
should there be a "no womens choice" about the life support system being taken away to give peace

are you categorically still thinking "if you have sex the woman should be forced to carry all foetuses to term and take responsibility"

are you aware that if "rape" is the only clause to allow abortion.. then every consensual act of sex that accidentally ends in pregnancy due to slippage or failure of birth control. may end up with women having to make claims of rape due to not wanting pregnancy but ended up pregnant thus not giving consent to the pregnancy. as a form of validation to get an abortion. thus rape claims will sky rocket to get the treatment they need

and keep in mind
sex is not just for procreation
sexual precautions, protection, birth control are not 100%
having consensual sex is not the same as pregnancy consent

you may want to look into people that have consensual sex, but the male knowingly has an STD and doesnt inform the woman that his intentions is to pass her an STD. which when she finds out he passed her something she did not consent to which affects her life. that is a sexual crime

whereby the same scenario of the woman initial consent to sex is not consent to STD or pregnancy. so then becoming pregnant/infected due to intentions/accidents caused by the man.. then mean she can claim a sex crime occurred

what about the silly illogical non medical but judicial decision of the rape clause not using the common sense biological limit of 24 weeks but instead the limited scope of just days to a few weeks being the barrier of abortion

update:
after the march 27th order to freeze assets to the total value of £6m... to avoid asset freezing the sum had to be paid in full to the courts
.. a third party paid £6m to the courts which the courts are holding onto whilst COPA calculate their costs.
the court acknowledge that someone that is not CSW paid the £6m

on april 12th copa filed and the court agreed to a second order to freeze accounts of CSW and 2 businesses to a total value of £1m, again giving CSW the chance to pay in full (by the 16th of april) to avoid asset freezing

there will be a further court update on the 26th of april

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-london-b1151135.html

if you are not conscious to realise you are alive. you dont have rights. the next-of-kin has medical proxy.
i think women should have more power than men. and state should not over power the woman when there is a life support system in place that IS THE WOMAN

however abortions should be the womans decisions before the fetus has its own independent survival ability (usually above 24 weeks)
before this period the woman decides.. as she is the life support machine

..
a question for you:
what is your opinion on decisions of elderly/disabled relatives on medical life support with no consciousness?
should families never have the choice in removing the life support?

funniest thing is... most developing countries RECENT HISTORY shows that medical skills and technology are NEW. not societal/cultural norms of a society/culture built over centuries.. developing countries for centuries has had fashion and food as the main industry/part of their real culture

yep making clothing far exceeded being a doctor as the main employment/ skilled role of a developing countries females role
centuries ago women would teach their kids to weave and stitch.. (and forage for food) as the main skill and role of society

its only very recent decades that tech and medicine has become popular

so culture vs new trends... if you want to speak of a countries culture.. dont then use a countries new trend

why is it that the virgin incels(people like badecker) think they have a right to decide on female choices

put it this way when a family member is not conscious, on life support. the law and ethics is that the closest family member gets medical proxy on medical decisions and most courts, hospitals and doctors honour that

so in regards to pregnancy
the woman is both the medical proxy and the biological life support machine. her decision means more then anyone elses

....
as for the "contract" a certain incel talks about

his religion should tell him. 'if you want to put a baby in it, put a ring on it', THEN the guy has a contract with the woman(via marriage)
(the whole marriage before procreation thing)
yep marriage forms a contract between a male and female

..
as for the topic creator (virgin incel that wants to control womens consent)
when he gets excited about thinking he has gained controlling rights over a womans decisions in cases of rape and incest.. that says more about what sexual activity he prefers to dream of having one day

having sex with a woman does not give a man a contract to control that woman

as for his silly misunderstanding of legalese(law speak) of trusts, bonds and guardianships

the contract begin with marriage. which is a 2 party consent to unite and form a family bond into a contract of trust of any conception, progeny after the marriage

..
as for his assertions over a mans sperm grant contractual rights over the future use or new creations when the sperm is given out to someone else

contract law does not give things like panasonic(that provide batteries to elon musk) the right to decide how elon musk can use the batteries for tesla cars
panasonic do not then own tesla company, nor have decision power over tesla manufacturing process, nor own a unfinished tesla car whilst in the factory..nor after it leaves the factory..

once a car leaves the factory the registration documentation may then indicate a partnership with tesla and panasonic. for whomever becomes the family that keeps the car. in regards to whom has warrenty, repair, recall, disposal control over the car.. but that is still written up and decided by tesla. not panasonic

by elon receiving panasonic batteries it then becomes elons product, which he as tesla car manufacturer decides on how the batteries should be used for the product he creates in his factory. even state law cant stop elon for calling/deciding to do a recall, repair, disposal of his product whilst in his factory. elon(tesla) decide what happens in their factory

replace elon(tesla) for woman and panasonic for man, and sperm for batteries, car manufacturer for females pregnancy, registration for birth certificate, factory for womb

LN is not bitcoin so not sure why you are getting so giddy about wanting LN adoption..
secondly LNs problems/obstacles are not the lack of adoption.. its actually LN's own problems and obstacles(flaws bugs, exploits), that are the issue of why its not getting adopted

did you know the more people that adopt it the more obstacles occur. yep the more bottlenecks and liquidity issues arise and cause more centralisation to occur and more IN-LN fee increases when more people join. and thats just economics/math of the way LN was designed in regards to moving value around a network

LN also has its own flaws, bugs and exploits even before people adopt it which LN devs admit now they cant fix which is also reason people wont adopt LN

and that not just my opinion. its actual details said by the LN devs themselves..
even 'poon' the progenitor, curator, conceiver(insert title) of LN has even moved onto other projects of doing subnetworks elsewhere

if you are hoping LN reaches its "1 million" milestone before core devs then decide its time to then scale the bitcoin network to cope with LN.. you are wrong and will be waiting forever.. we should be trying to get core devs to either relax their own centralised control to allow other brands of devs to make proposals on the bitcoin network of features for bitcoiners on the bitcoin network need/want to scale BITCOIN. or get core to stop delaying scaling BITCOIN and just get on with it. this has been an ongoing impedance for many years, they cant just keep on pretending they have to wait and find solutions and not know of exploits(which they were told about years ago) and instead actually do what they are put in positions to do, be bitcoin devs not alternate network promoters

LN is not the solution it makes out to be and the things it pretends to solve are limited thus doesnt solve the main issue, its just a niche subnetwork for niche service for a niche usecase of small amounts AT RISK(less secure).. not a solution to bitcoin scaling.. and trying to make people think its the 'all or nothing' thing everyone has to wait around for and hope and dream and give false snake oil sales promotions to recruit people into.. is just not even the right thing to do even if the network did fully function for all of the empty/broken/false promises that were made about it

though its merchant adoption is not as universal as fiat.. its a currency because i can pay my bills with it. and i have/ do

though right now in 2024 im more of a holder as the bitcoin market speculates and im not ready to sell, previous years i used it to buy things
 plane tickets, furniture, fast food, novelty items, asics, home appliances.. heck i even bought alot of stuff like:
blankets, cellphone-battery-backups, underwear, socks, hats and other things when i donated goods to a ukraine refugee supply run campaign.
but thats previous years. i personally havnt checked recently

yes its not as universal and easy to just walk into any shop and pay with bitcoin without research prep to know which merchant to use... but there are alot of places that you can finds goods for bitcoin if you really look..

edit:
i just thought of a random purchase and checked if i can do it with bitcoin in 2024.. and yep..
the random thought was a movie ticket for the new godzilla movie.. and yep. i can

edit 2:
another random purchase thought.. socks.. again yep i can

edit 3:
another random purchase thought.. plane tickets.. again yep i can

so yea still a currency

im sure after a couple month you worked it out by now
it was about the CSW vs COPA case
where CSW falsely insinuated prolonged involvement with cypherpunks, and adam back had to give evidence of his limited communication with the real satoshi to debunk the CSW false claims of communication depth which CSW falsely claimed to had involvement in as (falsely) satoshi

lets not make the label of CSW 'the man who claims to be'
the copa case already has the judge saying he is not
so use "CSW the fraudster"

and it seems due to the COPA case, CSW's main sponsor(ayres) funding his legal SLAPP suits has stepped/moved away from funding further suits, so now csw is financially bleeding, and with CSW's personal funds frozen, cant keep juggling all the lawyers bills, so we should see a domino effect of cases being dropped where CSW is the instigator/claimant

segwit was a rushjob to activate, sponsors had deadlines that devs had to be met, even Luke got a pay day for getting it activated before november 2017 corporate contract deadline, even if he didnt personally want it/use/trust it/ care about it as a utility.. money makes people do stupid things

---

as for LukeJr's/FBI stuff
seems this latest update assumes Luke JR compromised his keys/computer at that CoreDev Atlanta event

if he cant even remember how many people touched his device holding alot of coins(or access to remote server holding coin).. he should not have had that much coin on a device(or server with access via device) that so many people could touch

hindsight and all.. people should learn from others mistakes..
dont travel with hoards of coin. just take what you need
dont allow people to finger your devices, wallets or your pockets if you dont even know their names

im quoting stuff from actual regulators and task force
you are just crying like a baby that i dont spoon feed you every detail and instead i ask you to do more research

shows you dont actually care and dont want to learn..
but atleast i tried by actually quoting stuff.. you cant even be bothered to research to check things out for yourself

you are the one speaking BS
you cannot back up your assertions

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/12-Month-Review-Revised-FATF-Standards-Virtual-Assets-VASPS.pdf

and as previously clarified miners due to special exemption(covered elsewhere under the recommendations) are not VASP

but LN(embedded layering/other scaling solutions) routing(conduct a transaction on behalf of another natural or
legal person that moves a virtual asset from one virtual asset address or account to another) IS considered as VASP  

---

you self custody holding your own value and spending it to a destination for yourself is NOT A VASP
you acting as a middleman transferring value on behalf of another person IS A VASP (as is mixing and coinjoin)

get it yet, or are you going to play ignorance

..
i know you purposefully act dumb, ignorant and annoying to get spoonfed.. as toddlers do..
but you are older then that.. try to learn to do your own research and stop this childishness of doing these games to get spoonfed
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and stop acting like an idiot.. especially when you dont like being called it even when you earn the idiot label

if you dont want to be called an idiot. stop acting like one.

google the definition of MSB
google the definition of VASP
google the definition of payment facilitators

routing comes under the banner of being a VASP/MSB/payment facilitator

then google the regulations in regards to cryptocurrency(VASP)
and them look at how they are aware that there are payment facilitators/MSB/vasp not just on mainnet but that routing on subnetworks is in the regulations

ill give you a few highlights. but i wont spoon feed you like a baby, you should learn to do your own research.. you are old enough to feed yourself

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf

so yes they are fully aware of subnetworks (embedded layering or other scaling solutions)

being a vasp is not just cex on mainnet. its routing on subnetworks too

and like my previous post showed the explicitly exempted self custody self spending of own funds for self use as being a vasp.. and instead regulators are only going after those people acting as intermediaries facilitating payments for a fee(see definitions of vasp/msb/PF) on behalf of other people

which and to clarify mining is not a VASP activity(due to special exemption).. should you wish to dig deeper and feed yourself

YOU are telling people to use mixing services such as coinjoin which are already considered by regulators as suspicious enough to delegate via active regulation that services to put funds on watchlists and investigate if it reaches thresholds

thus im saying use ways that are currently not in regulators remit and currently regulators have deemed mining as NOT A MSB
you keep promoting people should use things that do fall into regulators remit.. and you want people to avoid using things outside of regulators remit.. (you are the opposite of helpful)

as for LN:
i am saying about regulators already discerning that subnetwork routers are considered MSB

thus again when you promote LN routing you are trying to push people into things that fall into regulation
you are not helping those you advise

you are the one blubbering because you have not even done the research on the regulations to know whats good for users and not good for users


as for you then blubbering about "Regulators might as well say that doing self-custody is to be put on a "watch list"
you are blubbering about things that are not current regulations... you are not doing the research or talking about current active risks of users using services, features, functions, utilities..

in regards to blackhats blubber about his fear mongering self custody and peer to peer of non mixing transaction....
lets let the financial action task force clarify
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/12-Month-Review-Revised-FATF-Standards-Virtual-Assets-VASPS.pdf
thus the blackhat blubber he got from oeleo where they were insinuating that bitcoin devs, bitcoin nodes and bitcoin miners are considered 'vasp(MSB) IS FALSE

they made that crap up to try to recruit people into using LN.. via fake scare tactics

you asked about the fee's of these high fee sessions.. so im talking about the funding origins of the fee's that can afford to do these high fee's annoyances. not the data used

i have not looked into caseys version(his set of junk). as caseys version as you show is not active (going by what you say)
but the scammer group that use caseys previous project curations to make their own sets of scam stuff are already active and setting up and promoting the next project. it seems its related to some BOB spice subnetwork being promoted that will be playing about with runes, they are currently gathering up scam value from their previous scam and shifting value around spending alot of the scam money as fee's

basically these spam sessions of these last couple years are all related to scammer groups selling junk and using the victimised income to spam more junk projects when previous ones die out(low victim count) using high fee's to set their projects up .. continue till death their scams and to promote the next one

scammers with alot of money from victims of last years spammed meme junk called 'ordinals' are now scamming via spamming with their next project of junk tokens called 'runes'

they know they cannot put their scammed value into a regulated CEX to convert to fiat(kyc fear). they dont care about the value they scammed as it was "free money" for them (very low cost to create the junk they sold to idiot victims). so they dont care about the coin they accumulated, so they have no fear of spending it as high fee to spam the network with their next scam..

these scam junk projects die when victims stop buying them and then when the scammers see people are not buying their junk token they stop spamming it and start a new version of junk to promote new scam.

those promoting these junk promotions and wanting them to go viral and not stopped are usually associated or part of the scammer/spammer crew

the best way to socially stop them is to tell people that they are scams and not to buy into it to stop fuelling scams/spam. and then highlight those who advertise, hype, promote these scams as being associated with scammers

yep november was $35k.. but 6 months ago it was UNDER $35k 12th october was $26k
which is if we take $35k/86*57 is about the $24k equivelent. so cost vs market is still in scale

so the situation of 6 months ago of 57t at market of $24k is similar to a 86t at $35k

also majority of miners plan not by the day, they pre buy/audit their accounts on a 1-2 year bases and buy up electric contracts and hardware for a 2 year lifespan so they mine constantly throughout.. its just a few hobbyists that plan by the day/week that are the weak hands that jump at the slightest market movement
but it would only need the market to stay above/around $72k+ after halving to be similar situation to 6 months ago.. and they were not crying about anal pain or poverty

i wouldnt say torn, just stretched a little

without you sinking your head into the small box thinking of a narrow use case of 'best-case-scenario'.. think critically of LN as a whole and its lack of auditing and restraints, lack of security over all..

people can create channels without bitcoin network communication to someones device. and still swap msats about that are not pegged to altcoins but supposedly deemed as msats pegged to bitcoin value/msats representations of bitcoin value.
LN has no network wide audit that checks each channel against bitcoin. LN has no strict requirement to enforce msats supposedly representing bitcoin value actually being 100% strictly contracted to bitcoin value... LN users have a multitude of ways to create channels that APPEAR or are DEEMED as being pegged value of bitcoin without the need of communicating/checked/secured with the bitcoin network
you are not forced to be a full bitcoin node to use LN when dealing with value or represented credit of a bitcoin locked collateral

i know you want to narrow conversations of the small narrow best-use-case dream scenario of one approach.. but LN is broader than the small promoted use-case and has much more flaws that prove the best-use-case is marginal


how can you agree bitcoin doesnt leave the bitcoin network.. then go silly by saying bitcoin does enter an entirely other network

a reference of a txid is not the same as the bitcoin on the bitcoin network. much like unmoved utxo from say 2012(pre forks) have the same reference in 2024 for bitcoin but when on a different network(fork/crapcoin) that reference then becomes something different and not considered bitcoin because its not being used on the bitcoin network to move value on the bitcoin network.. the value moved on another network is no longer deemed as bitcoin
and again LN also does not require 100% of the time a txid to open channels and supply users with msat.

first clear your mind of utopian dream usecase of LN

now rationally think.. there are thousands of networks right now that have utxo references of early adopters of bitcoin before all the forks
same reference number used over multiple networks.. this does not mean they are all bitcoin
actual bitcoin does not leave the bitcoin blockchain.. thats what makes the coin in the blockchain what it is

the stuff created when using other networks become other units/tokens/iou's of other networks. emphasis: when used on other networks
and LN has no network wide audit that parties even need to form a multisig when creating a channel. nor does it mean that the references (if used) are solely locked to only work in one channel


LN's proposition is not a tool where you just make a couple payments in half an hour then get on with your day.. its actually where you are presumed to need to stay in LN long term and do many transactions to make it financially beneficial compared to just using bitcoin
if you think LN design is to waste a bitcoin fee to open LN.. then make 7 payments in LN in 5 minutes and then waste another bitcoin fee to settle up the IOU, in a small timeframe, to then close LN and get on with day.. not caring about consequences..  well you are incorrect.
because you could just make 1 bitcoin transaction, using bitcoin with 7 outputs to different destinations.. in that one tx and save making multiple tx
and save on the headaches of trying to set up channels and choose partners and route paths etc

the idea of LN is to stay in LN long term. meaning the requirement of never sleeping to monitor malicious counterparty. or hire a watchtower middleman so you can sleep. applies (other work around conditions apply to to mitigate risks of the flaws of LN)

anyway i read your link
your link is more about you foolishly thinking LN is a prepaid card.. when its actually (in its best case way you even speak of its) where you lock up collateral on bitcoin network and then as a reference of credit/collateral. to do buy now pay later on LN.. where the recipient is not pre-paid.. but given a IOU suggesting they will get paid later if/when they settle later
LN doesnt offer settlement confirmation(paid in full).. the bitcoin network does


LN itself does not enforce a 50%:50% multisig channel policy of well audited collateral.. its actually YOU that is narrow thinking of "core LN" which is a narrow view service option of LN
you are stuck in the narrow view of a limited case usage of utopian ideal.. not critical thinking of LN as a whole.
you seem to want to white wash over the issues and just promote the utopian dream..
doomad does it and then blames all issues on "user error" when its infact LN flaw of not securing peoples value no matter the service/software used


you are really blind in regards to bitcoin scaling. completely obvious you are now talking the doomadism cult mantra to earn merit and ass kisses from him..

bitcoin scaling is not "big block" in the terms you have been indoctrinated into speaking about
there are many things involved..

by you just falling into the trap of "scaling=bigblock" narrative of doomadism cult. you have completely lost any intellect of understanding of bitcoin scaling
its not about politics of just choosing a bigger number of blocksize.

i am not "big block" of doomadism cult story/pigeon holing..
i am of the notion of bitcoin scaling

quick lesson
big block = dev/community politics choose a large fixed number and argue about the number
bitcoin scaling is about many approaches to allow more TRANSACTIONS per block
see the difference?

bitcoin scaling has many aspects
make transactions leaner than current average bytelength
re-integrate the 1mb:3mb segregation into a unified blockspace where the main tx data gets to utilise the 3mb space
fee formulaes to not punish everyone in some fee war. but instead to punish the bloaters and spammers the most while incentivising the lean, efficient, less frequent users that dont bloat spam
and code that analyses block fill rates over a period of time and allows more blockspace if there is prolonged congestion
(much like how "difficulty" does not need dev politics decision of changing difficulty, but self manages by using blockdata to work itself out)

---

also it appears you have not done the math on data storage or bandwidth of the blockchain nor how bitcoin functions.
 
firstly most transactions are not validated at block confirmation... they are validated at pre-confirm relay. and put into mempool
we already know by the size of mempool. nodes can handle more then 16mb.. because mempools store, relay transactions in much more numbers than 4mb, 8mb, 16mb per 10minutes
many have already done analysis of how many milliseconds it takes to validate and mempool and collate thousands of transactions.. you would be surprised how little time it takes

do some research on the 'mempool fill time rate' if you want a accurate figure of transaction propagation and validation and bandwidth of majority of data that goes around the network

as for when a block confirms and the block is propagated. due to things like compact block. its normally only the header and txid merkletree that is broadcast. which is much less data than you think moving around when a solved block propogates

enjoy doing that research, it will enlighten you

oh and heres the funny
if someones computer can validate and broadcast to a peer "millions of transactions a second" on LN.. it gives you a hint to how fast it takes to relay and validate transactions pre-confirm on bitcoin..

seeing as you are LN centric.. here is an idea
swap "LN hops per millisecond", for "bitcoin relay per millisecond" and you will get the idea of peer speed of data bandwidth, relay, validation times

oh by the way
due to how LN in your best case scenario needs PSBT and a couple verifications and communication cycles before finalising a 'state' agreement of a valid payment in LN.. before performing another payment
bitcoin relay can actually receive, validate, and store in mempool, and then work on next relay tx faster then LN's numbers
enjoy researching that

if you think putting your value into a "privacy serviceX" that regulators demand/delegate other services to watch users of "privacy service X".. by you putting your value into "privacy service X" puts you into the targets/sights which you are pretending to evade

when regulators say that coins used in mixing via coinjoin is to be put on a watch list
AND THEN .. YOU then use coinjoin, thus puts your coins on a watch list
its YOU that becomes insane

however instead by disposing of your coin as a fee, and then getting FRESH coin from a mining pool from a mining reward.. is not mixing thus not on some watchlist nor treated as a target/not watched with same scrutiny
analogy
police decide they will put speed traps and traffic cops on highway101.. publish that anyone travelling on highway 101 will be watched and checked for multiple things.. (warrants, traffic/speeding tickets, anything to raise suspicion to need to investigate a driver)
and you decide to promote that everyone should drive down highway 101 "for privacy".. you are doing the exact opposite of giving good advice

i am in this analogy telling people to trade in their second hand car and get a new car with no gps history, no previous drivers and never had a speeding/traffic ticket

you dont need to give away your name and location to get bitcoin rewards from mining pools

i am not anti-trans... i am anti-trends

trans is not as you think it is.. (its not about social games of discourse of mindset, bickering of mindsets)
analogy
someone deciding when they are a kid they want to be a fire officer. does not mean they get to be a fire officer just by their say so.. without training or skill or passing a test.... other people should not be forced into saying he is a fireman just on his say so.. there is actually a process involved in transitioning from one job role to another...
when kids do it, its cute, people play along(for a while) because they know its a game and a phase. but it does not make a kid a fire officer just on a kids say so

when someone is just confused about something due to some silly social media game they seen on social media.. they are not truly transgender, they are just playing childish games of wanting to be something they seen in social trends of what they seen on a screen

andrew chow is still andrew chow. even if he wants to claim he is something else. just looking at him you can tell he is still andrew.
listening to his voice is obvious he is still andrew
also it was his parents that named him andrew and doctors that had medical evidence that he is a guy(andrew) and they signed a birth certificate verifying gender and name and family members
if he wants to say andrew is dead(usual social narrative of these types of people) then his parents should file a murder investigation

if he is actually going through proper medical transition. then he should go through that process and complete it.... and not just playing social mind games to course discourse generated just to insult people that dont believe in his mindscape..

i have nothing against anyone that actually wishes to proceed the entire process of actual transitioning via all the lengthy medical procedures and surguries and medications and hormone therapies, if it leads to them living a life that fulfils their life..
however those just social trending a new trend of pronouns for social discourse because it sounds cool to put themselves into some label for some other reason of pretending they are a penguin, two spirit animal or helicopter or a different biology to their birth determined biology.. thats not the same thing

there is a process.. some people just have identity crisis. which can be worked out using therapy. EG they think they will get treated differently or get some compassion if they pretend to be something different..
however there is also others that after a process of therapy to actually diagnose them, they realise they actually are unequivocally better off as properly transitioning via hormones, medical interventions to change their gender (not just mind games/social drama trends)
if andrew does not have realistic plans of genital surgery. he is not actually wanting to transition

analogy
if you are not committed to do the processes needed to become a fire officer and be that role. you are not a fireman. you are just play acting as one