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.

Androids are humanoid. Mannequins are humanoid. Vulcans are humanoid. Humanoid is an adjective, not a type of creature. And looking again, Merriam-Webster gives “humanoid” as a noun, meaning: “a humanoid being.”

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.

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/…