AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Chinmaster, contrary to common belief, dictionaries are in fact not static. They get updated frequently to match common usage. I agree that outdated prints from the last millennium are irrelevant, but they tend to be newer than that.

Besides, if it was common to use a word like that, a good dictionary would include it so you would understand the use case. As no dictionary does, it can't be a common use case.

In other words, dictionaries do not exist in an isolated environment. They are actually constantly updated to reflect how the language evolves.

I think you're putting a lot more trust in them than I do

Well, I do put more trust in them than anecdotes on a forum because they are generally made up of word searches from newspapers, books and the internet. It means it's based on actual numbers and statistics rather than just "something you experienced" and thus something has to be true.

I'm sorry that I actually have some faith in the scientific method (which dictionaries tend to lean towards) rather than blindly following a stated opinion.

Whoa whoa there, slow down, turbo (no, not you, Turbo). Chin was the one who mentioned that he is fully aware that anecdotes are not definitive evidence for an argument.

Don't forget that observation is part of the scientific method. And observation varies in different settings. Dictionaries do not always reflect regional differences.

So keep your daisies panties on, and everyone remember not to attack each other. Or so help me God, I will pull this thread over.

Sorry. I did not mean to offend. I have been at work for 14 hours straight doing tech support. I just wanted to put my opinion on paper in a short and concise way.

And when it comes to observation in the scientific method it isn't in the way we normally think of it. There are two thumb rules when it comes to science.

1. Don't get fooled
2. You are the easiest person to fool

If you follow those two premises, you will find that your experience isn't worth much. All observation in hard science is done by measuring things. As an example, I can say that my road to work is "long", but by actually measuring it we find it to be X meters. No matter what we guesstimated, it would be wrong and the ruler would be much more correct.

The same thing goes for this argument. Dictionaries are created by counting the usage of a word, and then matching them up with the use cases. When a sufficient amount of usages are found, the definition is added based on the use case. Most definitions in a dictionary will be correct in general usage.

The point I am trying to make is that if you can't trust something where people spent hours upon hours scouring what litterature humanity creates, then what makes our few limited experiences back when we were 8 years old in elementary school more valid?

I'm not saying dictionaries are useless for that kind of thing, but I also don't think they're by any means comprehensive, especially if the definition you're talking about isn't an official one.

For example, I looked up Dog in three separate dictionaries, and not one of them described it as being a term for a male friend. I've heard it being used in this sense several times, both ironically and sincerely. I think it's actually used in that sense to a much greater degree than the term 'bossy' is used as primarily referring to girls

Again, I'm not saying that dictionaries can't be used in the way you're describing, but I also think they can be pretty limited since language changes on such a frequent basis

While empirical evidence is much better than observational evidence, there is still the point that empirical evidence wouldn't even exist without initial observation. Plus, a dictionary is meant to be based off of society as a whole anyway. It's supposed to be that the dictionary follows society, not the other way around. Of course, using that to say "Well then I should talk however I want to and they should change it on a whim!" is just ridiculous since it's an observation of how society works as a whole that determines what's put in the dictionary, not each individual person. You're a part of society, but you're not greater than society.

Is it gay if a guy goes out with a girl who has a dick?

I would imagine that depends on how the people involved feel.

I think that if everyone knew the girl had a dick, then most people would see them as a gay couple, but for the couple themselves they would go by whatever they think it is.

If the girl identifies as a girl and the guy identifies as a guy and they are romantically involved then that right there is a heterosexual couple regardless of dicks. If you want to get into the nitty gritty about whether the guy is attracted to the other person's femininity or their dick or whatever, I think it's important to remember that labels, in the grand scheme of things are kinda meaningless. I don't think it's necessary to try to quantify what's gay and what's straight and who's attracted to what and who and why. I' a firm believer in the idea that anyone can have romantic feelings for anyone else under the right circumstances. There are bonds that people form in life that are far stronger than what we deem the average coupling, so I think that, rather than trying to put all these sorta of relationships into different boxes with different labels on them, we should concentrate on how these sorts of bonds push us forward as humans.

So in short naw I don't think it's gay whatever.

I'm reminded of that video where this person was standing in a box labeled 'gender' and says, "What should I do? I don't fit in the box!"

And then another person walks past them and says, "There is no box!"

Like, my point is that if you feel like you need to have a label for yourself or your relationship in order to be content, then fine, use a label, but you shouldn't stress or worry if you can't find a label that fits your exact situation. It's silly to try and alter your life just to cram yourself into the requirements of a certain label. Live by your rules, not a definition.

(about 1:44)

Relationships between people attracted to only one gender and people who are transgender haven't really happened enough to have an agreed upon term, so it's all really just subjective. Personally I'd go off the gender identities, and say that it's a straight couple.

I think the "gay" debate should be finished and assimilated before an even smaller minority attempts to take priority.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would you mind clarifying?