> Most of the critics of Searle's argument fail to respond directly to his points. This is actually not all that surprising in that most of the critics are scie

> Most of the critics of Searle's argument fail to respond directly to his points. This is actually not all that surprising in that most of the critics are scientists and Searle's argument is philosophical, but it means that doing a point by point critique of the argument is unlikely to be very useful. Well now, that says something about philosophy's relevance to science. > Many people consider the concept of gender inseparable from its fleshly and biological origin and nature. And many people don't. The argument is just philosophical, what's the big deal?