From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   Richmond  writes:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, Richmond wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> oldernow  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2024-08-05, D  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> Just sayin'.... ;-)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed   
   >>>> around believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do   
   >>>> you plan to show *them*?   
   >>>   
   >>> People were talking about gender long before chromosomes were   
   >>> discovered, so I don't see why the definition of gender has to be based   
   >>> on chromosomes. In fact there is no way it could be.   
   >>>   
   >>> But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words, as usual.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Is there an inherent reason it could not be based on chromosomes?   
   >   
   > Yes, because the word 'gender' was being used before anyone knew about   
   > chromosomes.   
   >   
   >   
   >> It   
   >> seems to me your first and second statements contradict each other.   
   >   
   > It doesn't look that way to me.   
      
   Take for example the possibly more controversial example of the word   
   'planet'. This is from the Greek meaning wanderer. In this sense, Pluto   
   is a planet. What scientists did was redefined 'planet' to exclude   
   Pluto. But scientists don't own the word 'planet' nor do they have any   
   right to redefine it. What they did was defined a scientific or   
   technical planet. And that's up to them.   
      
   Words are defined by their usage.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)