A hermaphrodite is simply an organism with both male and female reproductive systems. The "sex change", in this case, is the removal of one of the genital sets. Arguing about semantics as to whether a hermaphodite undergoing operations to keep male body parts was therefore "a woman" before is frankly just a moot point. It doesn't matter what words are being used as long as the concept is clear.

As for the whole deity thing... Well, first of all, people who call the universe "God" are typically referred to as pantheists. I find it to be a silly concept because of the fact that that thing already <em>has</em> a name, and the name is <em>the universe</em>. If you call the universe God and then assert that God exists, it's a trivially true statement; your redefined term for "the universe" DOES apply to a thing (the universe), but it's lost all conceptual meaning. It would be like if I said that dragons exist, except "dragon" is just another word for the universe, and therefore I'm a pandragonist. It's asinine.

Further, there's a big difference between bisexuality and hermaphroditism. Sexuality is the behavior of an organism in choosing potential mates. An organism that chooses to have both male and female mates is therefore bisexual. Hermaphrodites (at least, mammalian hermaphrodites, as there exist many hermaphroditic species) are one-off mutations and are typically sterile. They CAN be bisexual, but that is entirely unrelated to whether or not they have double genitals, and the determination of whether or not a hermaphrodite would be considered gay or straight would, I think, depend largely on what gender the hermaphrodite considers themselves. If they think they're a woman and they have sex with men, then they're a straight hermaphrodite, et al.

Lastly, it's absurd to start pinning genders to a deity. Supposing one (or many) exists (and I find it extremely unlikely that any of them do, since they're indistinguishable from any other mythical creature when it comes to empirical evidence of their existence), the notion that it would be even remotely like any animal on this planet is beyond silly. It's a transcendent invisible superbeing; to assert that such a thing has a penis or a vagina (or both) or that it's straight/gay/bisexual/pansexual/whatever is astoundingly stupid. If such a creature exists, it certainly doesn't have a gender we can conceive of, let alone a specific sexual preference contingent on the fact that snails, trees, and clams have doubled sex organs.

No, Ahmed, I did not intend to imply that the man was stupid simply because a position he's arguing for is, in my view, silly. There are tons of people the world over who would defend positions I consider to be extremely stupid or ill-founded, but that does not mean that they are stupid for it; in fact, many are quite intelligent and simply compartmentalize certain aspects of their philosophies.

What I meant when I said that the words need not be important, in that very particular case, is that such words are subject to such semantic bickering and speculation that it's irrelevant. A hermaphrodite doesn't get a sex "change" as much as they get a sex "removal", but "sex change" is still an acceptable word because we know what it means (i.e. that they're undergoing an operation whereby genitals will be removed and hormones given). Similarly, that they use a women's restroom and operate in public as a woman does not mean that they're actually a woman (rather, they're both male and female), but the notion that is to be given is that they're going to remove the vagina and keep the penis. Because there exists no specific word for "hermaphrodite acting as a woman in public areas who wishes to undergo a sex removal of their female organs and thus be called a man even though they were already technically both a man and a woman", it becomes prudent to simply say that "she" is planning on becoming a "he" through a "sex change". None of those words are 100% accurate, but they're accurate enough to get a point across, and because there exists no easy words with which to convey 100% accuracy, their slight lack of specificity can be forgiven.

In most cases, yes, you want to know what a word means and use it properly. But in this very, very rare situation, it's parsimonious (that is, simpler than the alternatives) to use existing words to quickly convey a meaning instead of ranting on about semantics.

I am sure you mean the American because I didn't say that the man is stupid. I was wondering what does Grant means? That's all.

I think it'd be a stretch to say someone is stupid themselves based on one comment. I've said quite a few stupid things in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I am stupid. If all that they say is stupid, then yes, but not based off a single statement.