They’re shaped like humans. It’s a dictionary definition. “Having human form or characteristics” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.

So is Data, but Data is an android, not a humanoid.

That's just not true, amaretto. Vulcans are humanoid, Klingons are humanoid, Talaxians are humanoid. Changelings, Androids, the EMH, etc., are not.

I mean, people use the word that way. Maybe some use it in a more restrictive manner, but there's no reason to assume that such is the case here.

Androids are by definition (a robot with a human appearance) humanoid.

Look at the definition on Memory Alpha. One of the requirements is a brain, and generally mammalian. Obviously this doesn't apply to Data, the EMH, or Odo, even though they look human. The Borg don't really have a "natural" brain either, so I think this disqualifies them, also.

You guys are not using the Star Trek 24th century official definition. You're going off your own assumptions about what "humanoid" means, and I think you're confused about its actual definition.

Humanoid does not equal simulacrum.

This seems like a case where the question has a simple answer. If the Federation legal definition of "changeling" is "Founder of the Dominion," and someone else refers to "changelings in Keats" in a different episode, the obvious answer is that they are simply using a different definition.

Where's the question? Since you rejected an in-universe explanation when you submitted this, it seems like you are stating an opinion.

Frankly, I think you guys are confused. No disrespect intended, but I don't see how you can think that a hologram is a humanoid. You're not using the 24th century definition, which goes beyond simply looking like a human. It's much more than that.

So, from now on, we should define words by how we use them today, and not their intended meaning in the Star Trek world? Really? Am I the only one who doesn't get that logic?

Why would we assume that there is a singular 24th century definition, a "the" definition? In context it seems quite clear that there are multiple definitions. For example, "deck" refers to part of a starship, but there is no indication that it does not also refer to a set of playing cards.

If you want to use the Federation’s definition, then by all means, edit your question and include it.

21st century cars generally have a four-stroke internal combustion engine. That sentence describes the general trends and patterns of 21st century cars. It doesn't define what is a 21st century car or suggest that there are no 21st cars with a two-stroke engine or rotary engines. It also doesn't rule out the Tesla Model S as a 21st century car.

Related: scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/20274/…