You should be aware that when you write (1) "The kind of person who is an X is also a Y.", many careful readers are going to read that as equivalent to (2) "All people who are Xs are Ys

Many careless readers, you mean? This is Less Wrong, Tyrrell. Most everyone understands that "X is certain" doesn't mean P(X) = 100%. One hundred percent probabilities (infinite odds) don't exist and can't be updated; what matters instead is whether something is certain enough, and it needn't be 100% for this to hold.

Indeed. No one here had said anything about 100% probabilities. If you want (1) above to be read as shorthand for

(1') "The kind of person who is an X is also a Y with probability 1 - epsilon.",

I do wish it be so read, and this is how people should already be reading such statements, for the reasons given above. Requiring that all "1-epsilon" be always written as "nearly all" instead of "all" is wasteless verbiage. See But there's still a chance, right?.

This seems a fair summary of your view: Any Muslim creationist is so likely to be a cultural traditionalist that, when Yvain reports meeting an exception in Egypt, you may confidently accuse him of lying.

It doesn't seem like a fair summary of my view, or even one you put much effort into. A fair summary would be "Any Muslim creationist female in a Muslim country, who meets the criteria I specifically identified, is so likely to also adhere to the norm of restricted casual conversation with unrelated males, that, when Yvain reports chatting with one in an Egypt cafe where the impropriety would be noticed, then given his past embellishment of details [see last response to Zack], I may confidently suggest that his story is not entirely accurate and more likely indicates a tale pieced together from other accounts."

Ah, man, not so straw-stuffed when you put it that way...