But I said quite the reverse of that. To summarize, I said I have no problem with the existing definitions as typically applied ....
LoL - "typically applied". What I mean by a parochial mind-set - an inability or unwillingness to look outside of your narrow focus.
Though I'm glad you at least concede something in the way of a problem - some possible "confusion" - as far as human hermaphrodites are concerned ...
... so if you or others had a problem with it you'd have to explain what it is. Which, I note, you haven't done.
Of course I've done so - in chapter and verse, 3 cases only one of which you've conceded might be "problematic", the other two of which you've dismissed outright or ignored.
And I was drawing the same comparison for your claim of having explained something dozens of times, which also doesn't mean it's true.
Sure. But I've quoted chapter and verse to support my arguments; you've put diddly-squat on the table to "justify" yours.
Perhaps it's escaped your notice, but between the two of us the state of my mind is the only one that matters here.
Except the issue or the scope isn't just "the two of us".
Not terribly concerned about "persuading you". All I have to do, or want to do is show - for all and sundry who happen to traipse through these environs - that you haven't got a leg to stand on, that you've put nothing on the table to justify your position while I get to read into the record all sorts of evidence to justify mine.
...HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female. ...
Why is that (which would apply only to a vanishingly small number of humans) any more of a problem than redefining a very significant fraction of humans as neither male nor female?
Sure, as far as the number of people directly affected. But I expect that's only the tip of the iceberg - rather doubt all of the biologists who work in that area, and the authors of the Wikipedia article on the topic will be much impressed by Hilton and Company insisting they have to change their essays, articles, or working definitions for the sexes.
For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window ...
This is your fantasy of how language works. You're the one purporting to explain to everyone else the error of their ways, so how does that comparison reflect on you?
What horse crap. Sure would like to see Hilton stick-handle around a question of how their "hypothesis" might work with sequential hermaphrodites. Don't see how their "hypothesis" doesn't nullify the whole concept which is predicated on the idea that to change one's sex is to change the
function exhibited or manifested - i.e., from producing (present tense indefinite) one type of gamete to producing the other.
But hardly a "fantasy of how language works". Apart from previous links to Wikipedia articles on stipulative, and extensional & intensional definitions, I had linked, in my last comment, to another article on the venerable
principle of explosion to emphasize the problems of contradictions in one's premises - and definitions:
In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
- it may be worth a bit of elaboration. More particularly, you had said:
