Just in case this isn’t a bit: OP, the structure in English should be “adjective noun.” The opposite to most romantic languages where you say the noun then the description word. So a cat girl is a girl (assumed human) that can be described as a cat (has the traits of a cat). A girl cat is more reasonably a cat that is a girl, though you’d probably say “female cat” more often. For allergies you’d want to look into hypoallergenic cats like the hairless sphynx.

That’s not the same logic though. His logic is “Noun A is part of noun AB, that does not mean noun AB is equal to or a subset of A.” While the way you’re interpreting it is “Noun A is part of noun AB, thus AB is not equal to and not a subset of A.” The important part is that his logic only dictates that the relationship between A and AB are independent of eachother, while your interpretation states that A depends on AB in an inverse manner. Ie: “We cannot say popcorn is or is not corn based on name alone,” vs “popcorn cannot be corn because corn is in the name.”

Not taking a side on social justice, the logical comparison you attempted just bothered me. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Accelerator already touched on the side dish/main dish concept being not really a thing for the most part. That being said it is important to note, that traditionally fried rice is basically a leftovers only dish. Like you wouldn’t cook fried rice to cook fried rice. You’d cook fried rice because you had leftover steamed rice from the other night (and you’d use other leftover ingredients too). So, I suppose in a lot of those instances you’d only be eating fried rice, thus making it a main course by technicality (though it doesn’t have to be).

Source: Am part Chinese. Would cook fried rice to cook fried rice and disgrace my ancestors.