And, if a child is born without arms, they no longer meet your definition out for 'human' because there's a defect there as well?
While I disagree with most of Baron_Yam's points, there was nothing in his(*) post that said people with abnormalities are not 'human.'
'Male' and 'female' are human concepts. Nature doesn't give a rats patootie about such things and creates life in a myriad of forms and variations.
Yeah, not so much. 'Male' and 'female' are most certainly biological concepts, and nature does indeed care about such things because they are necessary for a species to procreate. That being said, people who identify as something other than their birth-gender are still human, and I accept their wish to be recognized as they present themselves. Nature may care about procreation, but human society cares about mutual respect and protection.
(*) I say "his" because Baron_Yam appears to identify as male, having granted himself the title of "Baron".