- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 81,351
- Reaction score
- 19,620
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
It's not my definition, it's common use.Your definition
these aren't two different things. Organs like uteruses and birth canals are necessary for a human to carry and birth offspring.It sounds more like you are saying that the presence of certain organs are the criteria, not any ability to carry an offspring or fertilize an egg.
No, you're reproductive organs determine whether you would carry and birth offspring or fertilize eggs.That would be a major difference in definitions. Which organs define which and what is optional?
not relevantWhat if there is a mix of organs?
Not sure why this would effect the definition of male or female.As I understand it, usually no. Depends upon the cause of course. But underdeveloped or nonexistent uterus and gonads not developed either way or only partly as testicles. No organs to either carry the offspring nor fertilize the egg.
Yes it is.And really, what are you classifying as "infertile"? Basically, by claiming "infertile" doesn't count, then you are countering your own "ability to X or Y" argument. As noted, then the criteria is no longer ability.
Non standards don't determine standards. At best you could call my argument a generalization which it is because I'm going by common usage.You are doing nothing more than saying if this non-standard condition wasn't there then they would be standard. Circular reasoning at best.