Now, if you have program that is highly complex, written by a single author who is not you, hinging on the ongoing goodwill and capability of that single author, that is a liability you do not want to have, operationally. Again, that is just how it is.

Inevitably, this is the new tradeoff to make, above average quality comes from asking for more, and knowing what to ask for comes from expertise.

Perhaps the problem could be mitigated by keeping the company itself small, but that has nothing to do with programming anymore.

Let me then rephrase the question: Do you reject the definition that a doctor is anyone who proclaims himself to be a doctor? This is, again, an absurd definition of what a doctor, a woman, or really anything could be.

So let me broaden it: Not only do I reject this type of definition for doctors or for women, I reject any such circular definition as absurd. You don't?

No, I said it doesn't matter to to the point I am making what I believe, except that I reject that particular definition, because it is absurd on its face. I may or may not reject any number of other definitions of "woman", it's besides the point.

As an analogy (futile, I know): There are many definitions of what a "doctor" could be. For example, I can accept the definition that "a doctor is someone has been licensed to practice medicine". I can't accept the definition that "a doctor is anyone who self-identifies as a doctor".

Of course, according to the definition that "a doctor is anyone who self-identifies a doctor", someone who self-identifies as a doctor is a doctor. It's obviously true and obviously absurd.

No, I'm making the claim that any such law conflicts with the position that "the state should stay out of it", obviously. And since you are not even the person supposedly holding that position, I don't even know where you're trying get here.

> You asked me this: "So you reject laws that require people to affirm my gender based on nothing but my self identification?"

I did not. I asked CamperBob2 that, who presumably holds the position that "the government should stay out of it". So unless that is your alt, I think you're missing the point and barking up the wrong tree.

> As I have pointed out above, the word "woman" has different definitions. So if you ask me whether I believe that "a person becomes a woman simply by self-declaring it", then the answer is yes for some definitions of the term, and no for others, like I already explained to you.

"A woman is any person who self-identifies as a woman" is the definition that started this whole subthread, and a self-referential one at that. The corollary of that definition is that anyone gets to be a woman by simply declaring it. So, according to the definition that a woman is anyone who says they're a woman, anyone who says they're a woman is a woman. That's a tautology, so it's obviously true. Check mate, athiests.

What clarification do you need? You can pick any law related to gender identity, and that by definition violates the principle of having the "government stay out of it". And I'm not trying to debate the merits of any such law, I'm trying to get to admit the person in question that they don't actually hold the belief that the government "should stay out of it".

> It would be helpful if you could be more specific.

No, because it actually doesn't matter the point, as outlined above. Again, I'm not interested in a debate on the merits of any such law.

> So if your tactic is to "put me on the spot", I would encourage you to apply this to yourself and genuinely consider what you actually believe, and why you believe it.

You expend a lot of words dodging a simple question: Do you sincerely believe that a person becomes a woman simply by self-declaring it? I don't believe this. I don't think you believe this.

I'm not asking you to define what makes a woman. It doesn't matter to the point what you or I believe makes a woman, except the distinction that it is (or isn't) as simple as declaring it.