I would say that a person born with a penis was probably assigned male at birth, within the context of a correct statement. The lack of a penis, at birth or afterwards, does not exclude manhood. Nor does the possession of one exclude womanhood.

It’s one of those things that hasn’t built up a solid usage yet. It’s difficult to parse ideas that are still evolving as we gain better understanding of the situation.

It’s just a niggling bit of figuring out the kind of structure to present as much of the concept as possible.

Since manhood isn’t defined by genitals, in a true sense, even someone having a penis probably being a man kinda leaves trans people that have a penis that aren’t men in a gray area for the purpose of this kind of tangential discussion.

I would say that the " if a person has a penis, that person is probably a man" works fine, I just can’t say it’s correct. More that it’s more correct than the original statement in the comic.

Again, this is about thinking over the passage language of it to eventually winnow down into something that would be correct in a more singular sense.