Fizz raises the question of intent. Even if so, it's possible to prove intent,
- If a person is transgender because they claim so.
- If intent is established through the express claim of the person.
- Then all you must do is find a person who claimed to be transgender at the time they claim to have intended to avoid a crime.
That sounds hard, but it's actually relatively easy. For example, reactionary demonstrator Amy Desir is a woman that claimed to be a man to get entrance into a male-only swim. It's clear she did it for political reasons and that her transition was to avoid prosecution for trespassing.
Of course, you could argue that she is transitioning only to protest a law which is directly related to the transition. But none the less, she's in a male-swim meet and still transitioning to avoid prosecution/punishment, and her intent is known.
So turns out anti-trans activists are pretty good at transitioning to avoid prosecution (or punishment), even if just to prove a point.
On the greater question of the principle here, you can ask any question that we have a reasonable ability to answer in a case of whether or not a past potential event has happened, it's going to be on topic if,
- That event has ever happened and you can show it.
- In this case, if intent is required, it's on topic if someone can reasonably show intent.
In this case, you have both. So given your question and the provided answer all is good. **That is to say, if the question can be answered a hypothetical that pretends the event may not have happened, or that pretends we can not discern intent is useless to what we do here.
However, If you ask if anyone was ever born in human history w/ 9 legs and 5 hands, it's going to be almost impossible to substantiate that claim because it's far more extraordinary. Can you ask it? SURE! What's happens is in six months with fewer than 3 upvotes, and no answers with positive score, the question will be purged. That's fine. It happens. Somethings don't submit to a reasonable attempt at answering.