For some reason I can’t reply to MugaSofer’s response, so I’ll just put this here...
that would seem to imply that infertile women are not female. Do you use a similar definition for male, or consider all non-females “male”?
It would seem to imply nothing of the sort.
Here’s an example of how badly you dropped the logical ball:
Saying
“people who write things like you just wrote, are making really stupid rookie errors in logic and calling their capacity for argument into question”
is qualitatively not related to saying
“people who write things other than what you wrote never make really stupid rookie errors in logic and their capacity for argument cannot be questioned”.
Related: If A implies B, that does not mean that NotA implies NotB.
I’m not sure if I should be using scare quotes for “female” :-\
Seems a lot of folks here are conflating the idea of female with the idea of woman. Female is a term of science, not socio-waffle: woman is (latterly) some idea about how one feels within one’s own skin. A female may identify as a man, and a male may identify as a woman. (Note also: I am perfectly aware that the etymology of “female” is said to be the Latin femina, which means woman: words do not mean what their roots mean).
It’s really not that hard.
EDIT: Why the SOTL quote?
To make you think “Why the SOTL quote? [Does this guy hate women?]”
Let’s just say that if it is capable of gestating a foetus (of its own species) to ‘maturity’ (i.e., birth) internally, it’s female, irrespective of what nonsense it claims in its ‘self identification’.
It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.
Ignoring the fact that this is a robot, that would seem to imply that infertile women are not female. Do you use a similar definition for male, or consider all non-females “male”?
I’m not sure if I should be using scare quotes for “female” :-\
Depends. What does the robot identify as?
For some reason I can’t reply to MugaSofer’s response, so I’ll just put this here...
It would seem to imply nothing of the sort.
Here’s an example of how badly you dropped the logical ball:
Saying
“people who write things like you just wrote, are making really stupid rookie errors in logic and calling their capacity for argument into question”
is qualitatively not related to saying
“people who write things other than what you wrote never make really stupid rookie errors in logic and their capacity for argument cannot be questioned”.
Related: If A implies B, that does not mean that NotA implies NotB.
Seems a lot of folks here are conflating the idea of female with the idea of woman. Female is a term of science, not socio-waffle: woman is (latterly) some idea about how one feels within one’s own skin. A female may identify as a man, and a male may identify as a woman. (Note also: I am perfectly aware that the etymology of “female” is said to be the Latin femina, which means woman: words do not mean what their roots mean).
It’s really not that hard.
To make you think “Why the SOTL quote? [Does this guy hate women?]”
Let’s just say that if it is capable of gestating a foetus (of its own species) to ‘maturity’ (i.e., birth) internally, it’s female, irrespective of what nonsense it claims in its ‘self identification’.
It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.
Ignoring the fact that this is a robot, that would seem to imply that infertile women are not female. Do you use a similar definition for male, or consider all non-females “male”?
I’m not sure if I should be using scare quotes for “female” :-\
EDIT: Why the SOTL quote?