3 ms·
No. What GP is saying is merely that being capable of childbearing obviously requires female biological sex. But the implication doesn't have to go in the oppos
by mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
No. What GP is saying is merely that being capable of childbearing obviously requires female biological sex. But the implication doesn't have to go in the opposite direction for it to be true.
Another example: the only vertebrates that can fly are birds(ignoring squirrels and weird fish). That's not equivalent to saying that the ostrich is not a bird.
Flying vertebrate => bird
Bird =/> flying vertebrate
- lionsdan 4y agoBats are vertebrates, aren't they?
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoYou're right, I forgot about bats! Yet I still took the time to disparage squirrels. Now I feel silly. I guess I can fix it easily enough: Flight(not gliding or floating) implies wings. Wings don't imply flight.