I won't speak for woozle, but this reads to me like a semantic argument. You sound as though you are defining "woman" in a chromosomal way. woozle appears to define "woman" in an anatomical way. (I'm guessing a vagina is necessary, but not sufficient.) I get the impression kittikattie has a different definition than either of these, but I couldn't quite tease it out of this context. And, of course, all of this started based on kdsorceress tossing out an impressively narrow definition above.
While I'm all for semantic arguments, at a certain point, I think the more useful question is: as long as everyone understands each others semantics, is there a need to get everyone to have the *same* semantics? And, if the answer is "yes", does that imply we should do so with *all* words? Personally, I find in my life, I am flummoxed by differing definitions of "relationship" and "love" than "woman".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2009-07-10 02:55 pm (UTC)While I'm all for semantic arguments, at a certain point, I think the more useful question is: as long as everyone understands each others semantics, is there a need to get everyone to have the *same* semantics? And, if the answer is "yes", does that imply we should do so with *all* words? Personally, I find in my life, I am flummoxed by differing definitions of "relationship" and "love" than "woman".