jqavins wrote:people have both physical sexes and sexual identities
The usual wording is physical sexes and gender identities.
(Well, many say biological sex, but that's problematic as the gender identity is - most likely - biologically determined, too, before birth.)
I'm not concerned with the "usual" wording. My whole point is to reject the usual wording.
but "gender" is about linguistics
That's what you claim. You are wrong. It is not only about linguistics.
Clearly, we are at an impasse.
Using "gender" for psychology is ... euphemistic ... Even though words do change naturally over time, I catagorically reject all arbitrary, artificial, and political redefinitions
Woohoo, languages change over time, big surprise!
No it's not a surprise; it's half of distinction between two types of change.
Next you tell us black people must stop being offended when you call them colored or negroes.
I suggest you run right up to the medical association that makes the ICD and tell them they are wrong calling it Gender Identity Disorder
(Actually, they are wrong, but because it's not a disorder [in the same way as being gay or bi is not a disorder, even though they once claimed this decades ago], it is just an incongruence between the sex and the gender.)
Y'know, I really wanted to let this go, but then came a couple of things I just have to respond to. First, GID's name is wrong because those who named it bowed to Basic Human Decency and used a euphemism instead of naming it honestly. But I won't bother to tell them so (Are any of you reading?) because it would be quite pointless. (And a huge number of GID diagnoses are incorrect because there is no disorder, but for those few people who are seriously troubled their incongruous physical and mental sexes there is a disorder requireing counselling, where the outcome may be to eliminate the incongruity but is more often to help the person come to terms with it.)
Second, no, I won't tell people with heavy skin pigmentation to stop being offended (though I do think the periodic changes are rather silly; we're probably due for another new word any year now.) But this is a differnt thing; noone is trying to redefine "negro" to be something else (like, say, white europeans who are really black folks trapped in the wrong body.)
Monika wrote:Long story short, you and a few other people may still think "gender" only refers to grammar, but you have long been outnumbered. So give up now.
I was outnumbered when I insisted the 2000 was not the first year of the 21st century, but all those other people were still wrong. Majority opinions are still opinions, and they don't make facts.
Long story short, I'm a curmudgeon, and you appear from where I sit to be heavily invested in the politically motivated meaning of this word. I've stated my position and I understand yours. I trust the reverse is true. I see no reason to discuss it further. You may have the last word if you like; I promise to make no more responses on the matter.