What meaning would that be then?
It has been long accepted in mainstream society that a person can be a biologically male adult and yet not a man.
Why is it such a stretch then to suppose that a person can be biologically female and also a man?
If you had difficulty understanding what I said then you should have asked for clarification.
Although, going over what I said I can't see how I could have been clearer.
And I still can't see how you got your bizarre interpretation from what I said.
For a start one can't infer "y implies x" from "x does not imply y" so why should you attribute the former premise to me based on the first?
And also, where did the "sperm producing" part come from when I did not mention it?
All right. Let's see where this goes. I'll start with the last question. "biologically adult males" produce sperm, at least they do so in the absence of illness or injury. I substituted "produce sperm" for "biologically adult male", because that's really the essential characteristic of a biologically adult male. So, let's back out that substitution. It really isn't all that important.
All right. Now let's go to the next to last question. Part of it is about "x does not imply y". Looking at your first post, the only thing that matches that pattern is "a person can be a biologically male adult and yet not a man."
So, we have x=biologically male adult, and y is "be a man". So, substituting those back in, we would have, "You cannot infer that being a man implies being a biologically male adult."
You are right. That isn't an inference. To my way of thinking, it's a definition, but that's the point of the dispute.
So, that's pretty useless. We have established that you have a different definition, but we already knew that.
Going back to your first post, then, you said it was accepted in mainstream society that x did not imply y, with the aforementioned values of y and x. I assumed that what you were referring to was the common usage of a word that said you are not a "real man" unless, in addition to being an adult male, you also did something else. Commonly cited exampes would be to engage rivals in violent confrontation, or refrain from eating quiche. In other words, the parlance I thought you were referring to was that in order to "be a man", you had to be x (a biological adult male) but also had to be z. (Something not specified by you, but it presumably involved some behavioral trait associated with masculinity.) If that were the case, then the logical formulation would by x&z implies y.
Apparently, that wasn't what you meant, although I hardly think my interpretation was a bizarre one, whether or not it was correct. However, if it's significant, I will have to follow your direction and ask for clarification of what you meant, instead of what I thought you meant.
Regardless, you continued. Substituting our variables, "Why is it such a stretch then to suppose that a person can be (NOT X) and also Y?" Or, "If y does not imply X, is it possible for NOT X to be Y."
Well yes, it certainly is possible. It's not a stretch at all. But it's also meaningless, and that's the whole point. If y does not imply x then pretty much any relation, or no relation, could exist between x and y. But if any relation could exist between x and y, then there really is no connection between x and y, in which case, we know absolutely nothing about y.
Recall that y="is a man".
In other words, there is no definition for "man". It can be whatever you want it to be. And indeed, that is where we are as a society, or at least where people would like to take us.
Perhaps you can supply some other definition for "man" or "woman" that would take us somewhere else, or perhaps you like where it's at. Be forewarned, though, that if you choose to attempt such a definition, you wouldn't be the first, and previous attempts have failed.
ETA: Got my x and y confused. Editiing in progress.
ETA2: Editing complete. This gets complicated. I hope I got it right.
