If you don't mind me asking, are you over 18?
It applies to all words.
If it applies to all words, then why do you care that I'm using "***/gender"? It doesn't matter if they are two different concepts, because they are both applicable to the concept of widespread acceptances. Furthermore,both concepts are relevant to the topic of conversation.
My argument has been that we use official documents such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to determine official definitions of words. While in casual conversation, society can create slang words to mean anything they want, the definition isn't official until officially recognized by credible sources. Else, mass confusion would occur in contracts, laws, rules, etc., when people can create and/or infer their own meanings of words. To prevent that chaos from happening, we have official definitions as standards. "this isn't a 'gun', it's a 'toaster'! That's what we call it back at home!"
You said that wasn't the purpose of dictionaries. However, when I said that I'm defined as a car, you used an encyclopedia
to counter my definition. You did exactly what I said dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. are used for, while denying the same exact purpose.
For example, if all of society decided to go along with your new definition of the word "car", we could add "Almalieque" as one of the definitions for the word car in all of our dictionaries, and refer to you simply as "car".
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Here you stated that we could add the definition "Almalieque" to the word "car" in all of our dictionaries simply because society decided to go along with it. That equals "creating labels for things all 'willy-nilly'". That is, unless you have a logical connection between "almalieque" and "car"? You still the same person, regardless of whether we call you Almalieque, car, or anything else. Words are just labels. The thing, or concept that those labels refer to does not change just because the label does
Here you state that regardless if I'm called "Almalieque", "car" or anything else, those are just labels and the actual thing doesn't change. That equals "not changing the actual definition".
Maybe "definition" was a poor word to use. So, let me rephrase it.So your argument is that we can create labels for things "all willy nilly", but it doesn't change the thing or concept that the labels refer to?
The next logical question goes back to who defines that "thing" or "concept". How does one label outweigh another label? You're simply going in circles to avoid conceding your point. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?