There was a category of people [not me, fwiw] for which abortion was the singular issue that made them vote for what they considered a deeply flawed candidate. Everything else paled in comparison.
From the pro-life point of view, it also affects the unborn child who is murdered. For many of them, abortion is literally the same thing as letting people kill their toddlers because they decided that they don't want them for whatever reason. This is the divide.
(I realize that there are other pregnancy complications that don't literally equate to having an inconvenient toddler, and pro-lifers aren't as consistent on how they view those cases, but those are a small minority of abortions.)
"Not voting for Clinton" is not what is leading to accusations of sexism. It's the voting for two old guys with documented - and often blatantly related - sexist attitudes as well as policy goals.
I assume you mean abortion in particular, but many women do want to protect the lives of the unborn. On that issue, both genders are split.
And...
> 538: Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women
> Preliminary exit poll results show that ... Clinton lost the votes of white women overall and struggled to win women voters without a college education in states that could have propelled her to victory.
This. The whole process has turned into character analysis and character assasination, rather than whose policies make the most sense for America. Both parties and the media are to blame.
There's a ton I personally dislike in the published GOP platform (eliminating the EPA, walking from Kyoto, completing the Keystone, defunding Amtrak, etc, etc) that bears discussion, rather than judging and yelling who's less evil.
I don't think anyone's saying that the question "who is x" ever means "give me the contact information for x". They are just arguing as to whether or not Siri's counter-intuitive behavior may be a reasonable response, given that it's a computer and not a human. This is not a hard question for humans.
It's a very hard question for humans. Back in the 70s AI had already worked out that conversations take place in "frames" which include a a ton of implied state. It turns out that state is essential to make sense of human conversations, because words and constructs have different meanings in different frames.
Even simple questions like "Who is..." has many different interpretations. A human will understand the context. An AI won't, because you can't derive the context from the words themselves. It's a function of social setting, physical setting, relationship, previous conversations, and so on.
At the moment conversational interfaces are more like a Bash shell with a speech recogniser on the front. The shell needs a precisely formed command and has almost no concept of state or context at all. (I think Siri actually has some, but not much.)
So it's completely unrealistic to expect CIs to be able to do this today. It will only be possible when NLP gets a whole lot more sophisticated and starts tracking context and state - although even that will still be a hard problem, because social state is defined as much by location, physical surroundings, time of day, and custom as by the words being used.
everyone's shouting past each other.