I apologize for posting as an answer what should really be a comment, connected to one of Jacques Carette's comments on my earlier answer. Unfortunately, this is way too long for a comment. Jacques asked why we would bother with set-theoretic foundations at all. It happens that I wrote down my opinion about that about 15 years ago (in a private e-mail) and repeated some of it on the fom (= foundations of mathematics) e-mail list. Here's a slightly edited version of that:

Mathematicians generally reason in a theory T which (up to
possible minor variations between individual mathematicians) can be
described as follows. It is a many-sorted first-order theory. The sorts
include numbers (natural, real, complex), sets, ordered pairs and other
tuples, functions, manifolds, projective spaces, Hilbert spaces, and
whatnot. There are axioms asserting the basic properties of these and the
relations between them. For example, there are axioms saying that the
real numbers form a complete ordered field, that any formula determines
the set of those reals that satisfy it (and similarly with other sorts in
place of the reals), that two tuples are equal iff they have the same
length and equal components in all positions, etc.

There are no axioms that attempt to reduce one sort to another.
In particular, nothing says, for example, that natural numbers or real numbers are sets of any kind.
(Different mathematicians may disagree as to whether, say, the real
numbers are a subset of the complex ones or whether they are a separate
sort with a canonical embedding into the complex numbers. Such issues will
not affect the general idea that I'm trying to explain.) So
mathematicians usually do not say that the reals are Dedekind cuts (or any
other kind of sets), unless they're teaching a course in foundations and
therefore feel compelled (by outside forces?) to say such things.

This theory T, large and unwieldy though it is, can be interpreted
in far simpler-looking theories. ZFC, with its single sort and single
primitive predicate, is the main example of such a simpler theory. (I've
left large categories out of T in order to make this literally true, but
Feferman has shown how to interpret most of category theory, including
large categories, in a conservative extension of ZFC.)

The simplicity and efficiency of ZFC and the fact that T can be
interpreted in it (i.e., that all the concepts of T have set-theoretic
definitions which make all the axioms of T set-theoretically provable)
have, as far as I can see, two main uses. One is philosophical: one
doesn't need to understand the nature of all these different abstract
entities; if one understands sets (philosophically) then one can explain
all the rest. The other is in proofs of consistency and independence.
To show that some problem, say in topology, can't be decided in current
mathematics means to show it's independent of T. So you'd want to
construct lots of models of T to get lots of independence results. But
models of T are terribly complicated objects. So instead we construct
models of ZFC, which are not so bad, and we rely on the interpretation to
convert them into models of T. And usually we don't mention T at all and
just identify ZFC with "current mathematics" via the interpretation.

type theory? Why do you want sets, or global membership? $\endgroup$ – Andrej Bauer Mar 10 '12 at 18:12notacceptable to have junk theorems. Mathematicians want variables to have types, either explicitly ("In this paper we assume that $G$ is a simple group...") or by convention ($f$ is a function, $k$ is an integer, etc). What would happen if a student wrote on a math exam "If $1 \in (x,y)$ then $x = 0$ or $y = 0$"? They would say the statement makesno senseand would refuse to judge its truth value. These are clear indications that we have a type theory. $\endgroup$ – Andrej Bauer Mar 11 '12 at 6:18materialset theory, that is set theory based on a global membership relation. But the OP and other commenters are also talking aboutstructuralset theory. What's important is that mathematicians can keep on talking about sets like we always do but still purge the junk statements from our formal language. A structural set theory, while arguably a type theory and certainly quite similar to a type theory, is still a set theory because it is a theory of sets. $\endgroup$ – Toby Bartels Mar 11 '12 at 16:18