The Merriam-Webster definition which equates it to Sex as defined "The male/female gender" and simply put "The state of being [either] male or female." You're definition is listed on there as the last entry but it seems likely that it's to define the the use of the word as an adjective rather than a noun.
Well, you're half right.
Here's the only part of this post that's maybe even slightly relevant, IMO, and only in the context of your also unsubstantiated claims that the social justice movement defends her doing this.
"If they believed in that, they'd be defending Thompson as well," implies that Anita Sarkeesian and Jack Thompson did similar things, and therefore defending Sarkeesian but not Thompson is bias.
I'm focusing on one point at a time, and you've called this the biggest problem.
Would you say that the "disease" is "defending all members of the in-group under all circumstances no matter what"?
I'll ask even better than that.
Is it REALLY needed? Seems this started since a few pages ago. That's rather a lot of posts to move...
Far too specific and absolutist for my tastes. Any step toward rejecting the concept of "us vs them" is always a step in the right direction, and "defending the in group" runs contrary to that goal. But so does absolutist statements. So I have mixed feelings... but I'll consider this a reasonable guideline at first glance
Shakespeare & Jane Austen disagree:
In the first I'd argue that it's probable that 'man' refers to mankind, but let's ignore that for now. In both these examples the individual the pronoun refers to is abstracted. It's not, 'Is John in love with her? What makes you their confidant?' which clearly is lesser for the use of 'their' instead of 'his'.
