Jonathan Humphreys wrote:
Nope. You brought attention to an anomaly. "gender" has an up-to-date definition, but it's not matched by up-to-date definitions of "he", "male" and likely "she" and "female." That's pretty anomalous.
Which is beyond nonsensical. We, as humans, are attaching pronouns to things most of us don't even see 99.99999999999999999% of the time we're working or speaking to someone. We're identifying people on the basis of anatomy that has absolutely zero bearing on an individual's personality. What lies beneath someone's underwear is the absolute very last thing I would be thinking about when I meet someone, if at all.
Wikipedia is supposed to be all about pure information, but I don't see relocation, retitling and mass pronoun replacement across her article, all in light of her announcement to live as a woman, diminishing in value as a result. It still details everything that existed before that announcement with the same level of accuracy and citations, and it will continue to be updated as future events in her life unfold and reach the public eye.
Civilisations have existed just fine without them, albeit civilisations that weren't as dependent on data and information as we are today, but they were still civilisations.
