Oxford : the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):
I no longer wield Oxford after doing a bit of research on it. Their "word" of the year for 2015 was an emoji, they have just wrong or inapplicable meanings in some of their words (see
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/karakalpak?q=Karakalpak), they have a good blog, that's it.
I haven't heard of nor wielded Mirriam-Webster, so I couldn't really tell you much about its goodness.
Dictionary.com (of which I haven't really looked into, either) agrees with me, I don't see what's the dispute, here. See their usage note, too. Doesn't matter if it's coined recently, it's still a word.
I frankly think that Wiktionary is underrated as a dictionary, I think it's the best online dictionary there is. Sure, it can be edited by anyone, but the anti-vandalism jobs are really good at their work, they really hound folk about sourcing, I don't see any problems. It has many dialectal words that Oxford just leaves out, like "frain", and actually gets it right (see
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Karakalpak). For non-English tongues, I get where you're coming from, but it's fine for English.
Seriously, gender is just a handy word to tell apart from sex. Folk whose gender is different from their sex, they're weirdos. What've you against this easy classification? And obviously, words can't have sex organs.
Men are born with dicks, Women are born with vaginas.
A Man: Produces sperm in his testicles.
A Women: Produces eggs in her ovaries.
What do you have to say about castrated men or women? Genderless?
Edited 4/17/2016 05:55:14