By Army1987's proposed definition, an entity that neither has a functional penis nor can be penetrated by a functional penis is definitionally not fuckable.

That seems pretty clearly to be a penis-centric definition of fuckability. (A functional-penis-centric definition, at that. Cucumbers, for example, are not by this definition fuckable, however women may feel about them.) In the same way that "has a functional vagina or is capable of being inserted into one" would be a vagina-centric definition of fuckability.

Admittedly, penis-centric isn't quite the same thing as androcentric... not all men have penises, after all, and not all penises are attached to men... but given that the community of penis-havers overlaps so significantly with the set of men, treating the two groups as roughly equivalent doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I don't say here that this is a bad thing, or really express any moral judgment about it at all. Mostly I think it's a silly digression from a silly discussion, my own contribution to it no less so than anyone's, and we should all be downvoted for contributing to it.

But if we're going to get pedantic about it, I'd have to say that NeverSeenBelgrade's position here is at least more straightforward than yours.

You're missing the point but you're still kind of right. So I fixed it.

The fault for the point missed likely lies on the absent clarity I sacrificed for brevity.