and the problem is, like so many other words, a single definition isn't accepted by all those who use it, and those who hear it.

Plain and simple, our language is to blame for much of our social discourse. Until we all agree with the meaning of a word, when used in any conversation, we aren't communicating if both the speaker and the listener don't understand and accept a common meaning.

Like so many in our English language, the definition of a word requires context, can be different by geographical region or social membership, or even usage. Take the word peruse for example. The historical definition of the word, straight from Webster's Unabridged copyright 1983: 

1. to read with attention; to read carefully or thoroughly; to study. 

Surprised? I'd argue most people hold the definition of peruse to mean to scan, or read over quickly. If your boss handed you a 100-page legal document and asked you to peruse it for tomorrow's meeting with the CEO, what would you do? We have collectively come to enjoy the latter meaning. So much so that the third definition in the same 1983 Webster's Unabridged is simply: 3. to read.

Take a look at today's Webster's online definition:

1 a : to examine or consider with attention and in detail : STUDY

   b : to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner

2    : READ
      especially : to read over in an attentive or leisurely manner

attentive OR leisurely? Aren’t those terms contradictory in this context? So, what do we mean when we say peruse? It's anyone’s guess, and that's the problem.

Okay, so what about this word gender? Do you know what it means? Do you? Are you sure?

In the case of gender, it’s so much worse; and iGanja has caught you! Kudos to those who have orchestrated this bit of social discord. The left is having a real field day (and a laugh at the right's expense) with this one. I too was caught up in this ridiculous argument over how many genders there are; knowing all too mater-of-fact(ly) there were only two. How could any reasonable person claim any more than that and keep a straight face. But they did...keep a straight face, and omg how stupid are you? and how stupid must you think the rest of us are?

There are only two genders when using the word to denote biological sex. <- that’s a period.

Anyone who honestly thinks differently need not read any further. You are too stupid to have any meaningful conversation.

However, the word gender is very interesting, and yes, a fluid defined word that requires context, and an incontrovertible understanding of what the subject or topic of conversation is, to know its meaning.

Again, Webster’s Unabridged defines gender:

And Webster’s Online:
1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
     Latin has three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.

  b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass

  c : an inflectional form (see inflection sense 2a) showing membership in such a subclass

There you have it. The primary definition of gender clearly states it as grammatical construct. Plain and simple. It denotes subjectivity and requires agreement by the users of the word as to its meaning in any context.

To be fair, Webster’s Online does go on to include a second definition, much like Peruse.

2 a : SEX sense 1a

   b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

   c : gender identity (a link to an entirely new word [phrase] which Webster’s defines as)
        : a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female

Nothing to do with biology, only an "internal sense". Interesting how this word has evolved, like peruse, into something completely different, and conveniently obtuse, yet used today to denote a strict definition for all based (incorrectly I might add,) on the sixth derivative. And now we fight, like the left and right love to do, over this sixth derivative definition as if it was the first, and only. No reasonable person would fall into this trap, would they? Well, most of us did. Kudos again to the woke left.

And now iGanja’s take:

A few decades ago, when America was still relatively conservative, and the “moral majority” was censoring everything from how many times the word “darn” could be used in a 30-minute sitcom episode to what color hair your children could go to school with, some church group – I am imagining – decided the word “sex” on a DMV form was just a little too risqué. We needed a different word. We need one that denoted sex without actually using that word. Enter, more pleasing to the conservative world, gender.

Form, after form, after government form, quietly changed over time from Sex: “yes please!” to Gender: That’s it! And you thought it was a conspiracy. Nope. Just the radical conservative right forcing a watered-down word on us to uphold morality and quash a funny joke, for good.

Enter 2020, and the great woke take over. Gender means Sex! Don’t believe us? Why does it say that on our birth certificates? Why is it on our driver’s license? We are assigned our “gender” at birth, and since gender is – by definition – a fluid construct that can change over time, so it is with OUR SEX. Viola! It’s all a matter of how you feel that day. You can be a boy, or a girl, or as my son (youngest offspring) would say, an “attack helicopter”, anytime you want.

So yeah, there is a problem with gender – the word – and it’s the Right’s Fault that it is now a problem for all of us.

"oh I Ganja!"

Now is the time that all (good) lying, cheating, using, ego-maniacs just give up this charade and tell the fucking truth. Not that I feel Major League Baseball has any right to go after these guys in the first place. As I have said, what’s done is done, and it’s now time to move on, and without the guys who are simply not man enough to admit what they have done, and own it, and make NO excuses for their behavior. In fact, I’d have a ton more respect for Roger Clemens et.al. if they’d just tell the truth! But continuing to live and act as if the rest of us are just too plain stupid to realize that there is an enormous amount of cow dung being heaped upon us is not endearing us to your positions.

So instead of owning it, admitting it, coming clean with your mistakes, maybe even (dare I say) showing some solidarity with your fellow maligned “steroid-era” cohorts, you all continue to deny what anyone with even a double digit IQ can clearly see. Nay, you even file defamation lawsuits against those who actually have the balls to tell the truth.

I wonder if anyone advised Roger that a defamation of character lawsuit will most often be fought in defense by drumming up even MORE dirt on youto “prove” you cannot be trusted and that you are a lying piece of shit? Dude! You had a 10 year affair with a smokin’ hot (at the time,) 15 year old aspiring country/western singer? My god, how stupid can you be? Next you’ll be filing a defamation lawsuit against the New York Daily News (get in line, dude, the end of the line is somewhere in Connecticut,) and in defense, they’ll probably find that you had numerous meetings in a New York Central Park public bathroom with George Michaels. Fuck dude, cut your losses already.  Oh, and btw, saying it wasn't sexual is just another insult to our intelligence. You tapped that! You did.

To Roger and all the others:
I do NOT condemn you for taking steroids, clear, cream, hgh, greenies, or whatever else you did to gain an advantage in an “era” where practically everyone did, thereby making it not so much an “advantage”. And seriously, I just don’t care anymore to know who did and who didn’t. In my mind, you did because you had to, or you thought you had to just to stay up with everyone else. It will be forever known as the “steroid era” so if you were one of the VERY FEW who didn’t succumb, great for you! Unfortunately, history will not record that fact. I DO condemn all of you who get caught, and deny it! You are still our heroes, steroids or not, and to lie when you are clearly caught destroys our vision of you more than the fact you did it. We know you did it. We don’t care anymore. We do care that you man up!

To the players union:
If you continue to fight the fight, Roger Clemens will NOT be the last big name to fall from grace. The time has come to truly protect your members from further “defamation”, that is if you really care. My advice to you is have every single player who played even one game of baseball between the years of 1990 and 2003 come forward and admit to being a part of the steroid era. Everyone knew what was going on, and the fans know it. In one way or another, everyone had a part in it. EVERYONE! It’s called solidarity. If every member of your union admitted to being a part of the problem, then no one member can be singled out again. In fact, we may actually find, as is my assertion, that Major League Baseball itself is mostly to blame for the problem, not the players. Turn the tables on those that should have done something about it a long time ago!

dude... i ganja, they ganja, we all ganja!

The average single man lasts around 7 minutes during intercourse, and only between 2 to 3 minutes of actual thrusting.  The average married man lasts around 14 minutes, but still only 2 to 3 minutes of actual thrusting.

http://www.clitical.com/orgasms/orgasm-facts.php

I actually found plenty of documentation stating that the rate of contractions during orgasm is .8 seconds (for both men and women!) how incredibly conveniently coincidental!  And if that is truly the case, is it any wonder at all that the notion of climaxing together is the end all of orgasmic pleasure?  Even with this factoid, it is anyone’s guess what the average man’s rate of thrusting is, but many resources imply that matching the orgasm rate of .8 seconds wouldn’t be a bad idea!

So, at .8 seconds per thrust, and 180 seconds (oh I’m giving all you men out there the upper limit here so sack up and give her the full 3 minutes man!) of thrusting that gives us 225 thrusts during intercourse.

But wait, consider this…

http://www.mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap10/chap10w.htm

Again the experts don’t give any concrete data on frequency but lets say the average couple in a healthy sexual relationship is having sex at least 3 (again, sack up man!) times a week.  So, at 225 thrusts per go, that gives her 775 thrusts per week, and a whopping 40,300 thrusts per year!  Not too bad?

Alright, now where is this all going you ask?  Well, you didn’t really think that this little editorial would be complete without a short (pardon the pun) discussion on penile length did you?  Of course not!

Now, of course I am a huge proponent of (the admittedly self architected) D’Mo’s manhood indicator algorithm which gives proper credit to both length and girth, but for this argument we will be looking at length only.  That being the case, the average male member is the subject of much debate, but generally considered between 5.5 and 6.5 inches.  In fact most references on this topic agree that the absolute average is right around 6.1 inches with a standard deviation of .77 inches, which gives us somewhere around 88% of the male population in that range.  Let’s use 6 as a nice round (or shall I say long) number?  If you’re not reaching the average guys, you’re going to have to adjust your calculations accordingly from here.

http://www.sexinfo101.com/kb_penissize.shtml

So, using our previously calculated 40,300 thrust a year and our now accepted 6 inches a thrust, this gives her 241,800 inches a year!  That sounds like a few feet, eh?  In fact, 20,150 feet, or 6,717 yards, or for our European cousins, 6,142 meters.

And for our final calculation, get this, 3.82 miles!

Now ladies, I ask you, are you getting your 3.82 miles a year?  Or are we shooting (another fabulous pun) for an even 4!  Well Endowed!

oh, I ganja!