>>29611710
You're right about the delusion part but wrong about this :
>every single day you deploy the concept of a women, at the gas station, the store, etc.. and you never are checking off necessary and sufficient conditions like "has a certain gamete size, penis, chromosomal makeup".
Nobody does a full check of all sex characteristics, that's true. But what they do is that they use gender (hair, clothes etc...) as a proxy for sex, because most of the time, both align. If people could view chromosomes, genitals and so on through clothes and skin they would not use this gender proxy. An analogy with water : we can define water as "liquid H2O", that doesn't mean that we check for that precise molecule when we shop for water, we use proxies : how transparent is the liquid and what's written on the bottle. At the end of the day it's a philosophy of language problem and as long as people meant "adult human female/male" for "woman/man" then that's what the words means.