You make a good point, and I'd agree that it's implicit that they mean "non-human primates". Otherwise they could solve this by labelling lots of humans as "pri

You make a good point, and I'd agree that it's implicit that they mean "non-human primates". Otherwise they could solve this by labelling lots of humans as "primates" in the dataset. On the other hand, I think there's a semantic difference between your two cases. I'd argue that treating a woman as an "object" is a different sense of the word to how women (and men and teapots) are literally "objects".