Is this relying on an ambigious definition to define "sexuality"?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
From here:
IN response to me saying:
So you conflate female power with being sexual.
He responds:
Yes I do conflate them because sexuality is part of person and they might express them self through their sexuality.
Who you are attracted to is what sexuality means, but the word can also be used to describe "being attractive". Hence the issue. He is playing around with words.
Comments on Question
Answers
1I don't think this person is using an incorrect definition. I looked at a few sources, and found some that match the meaning they seem to be using, like this one from the APA:
all aspects of sexual behavior, including gender identity, orientation, attitudes, and activity.
Looking through the thread, it seems that their point and use of the word are pretty consistent, I don't see them changing the way they use the word to fit with their current argument.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
"Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, psychological, physical, erotic, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors". So yes, it covers who you are sexually attracted to (sexual orientation) but also ways of expressing it. In any case, his answer makes no sense, because «female power» only means that: power of a female. And even if it includes «sexual power», it is only a fraction of all possible «powers». This is, you could replace «sexuality» with any other word like «hunger», and you would see the nonsense: «Yes I do conflate them (female power and hunger) because hunger is part of person and they might express them self through their hunger». It is a fallacy of composition. It occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the parts of something must also be true of the whole, or that the characteristics of a part can be attributed to the entire thing. In the example you provided, if someone were to conflate «female power» with sexuality and assume that sexuality encompasses all aspects of female power, it would be an example of the fallacy of composition.