Basically the body is still male or female, down to cellular level. Because humans can't change sex, any more than any other mammal.
This is, of course, the simple truth; but even if it were theoretically possible to actually change sex, why would amending one or two focal features to roughly cosmetically resemble actual organs that your sex doesn't have rule that you now are that other sex? What about all the other distinct markers of the sex that you are not? If we're going for the 'gotcha' points, a transwoman would also need to have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes and ALL other female-specific organs/body parts installed.
I couldn't just say "leopards have spots" or "zebras have stripes" and thus paint them on my body and claim that makes me into one, conveniently ignoring all of the other many human features that I would still have, which a leopard or zebra never would.
Like with the 'sex and gender are NOT the same thing OR sex and gender ARE the same thing - depending on what suits any one of our particular arguments better at any time', we're constantly told that we're being reductive and bigoted to take genitals as the only marker of a person's sex.
Therefore, for somebody who has had some kind of cosmetic surgery, the same thing must still hold true: that a man who has had his penis removed and a wound very vaguely resembling a vagina on the surface in its place is still the same man that he always was. A man suffering from penile cancer who genuinely has to have his penis removed does not become a woman; a woman who has a hysterectomy does not become a man.
It seems that the people who are widely accused of being the narrow-minded genital-obsessed bigots and the people who ARE demonstrably the narrow-minded genital-obsessed bigots may very well not be the same groups of people at all.