From: nobody@nowhere.com   
      
   On 1/16/2026 2:06 PM, The True Melissa wrote:   
   > Verily, in article <10kdtm2$1s955$3@dont-email.me>, did   
   > nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:   
   >>   
   >> On 1/16/2026 6:30 AM, The True Melissa wrote:   
   >>> Verily, in article <10kcenu$1b8jc$2@dont-email.me>, did   
   >>> nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:   
   >>>>> An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens,   
   characterized by   
   >>>>> double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Well, your reference to 'female' already begs the question.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> He already embedded a definition of "female": "characterized by   
   >>> double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young."   
   >>   
   >> I took those to be litmus tests at best, not a definition.  E.g., is the   
   >> double-X chromosome threshold airtight?   
   >   
   > The traditional definition is by reproductive role, not by chromosomes.   
   > We were able to distinguish male and female long before anyone knew   
   > chromosomes existed.   
      
   Yes, we were, and are ...by a nearly always reliable *consensus*.  But I   
   don't think that standard's available to this sort of legislation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)