You speak like you're on a podium. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK.

You speak like you're threatened by a woman who isn't afraid to speak her mind and doesn't feel the need to dumb herself down to conform to what you want her to be. LOUD NOISES, LOUD NOISES, LOUD NOISES.

More assumptions.... You don't even know me. I've given you very little information to make yourself assume such a pathetic thought. You wouldn't know that I have started support groups for battered woman, or that I witnessed my mother in an oppressive relationship and fought hard and sturdy to get her out. You wouldn't know any of this because you are too busy defending your own agenda without knowing who is who and what they've been through. I think you need to step off your high horse and realize the world isn't against women. Yeah there are groups out there that would like nothing more than to see women in the kitchen or behind a sewing machine, but from my perspective I expect women to be independent and self sufficient. Take you wild assumptions and park them elsewhere.

I go by the approved definition and only the approved definition, if that definition ever changes then yes I will agree with you but until then I can't, simply due to the fact the sexism at its current definition includes name calling and singling out of individuals based on their gender. Even stereotyping is placed under the definition of sexism and racism. How can one argue with the definition of a word? Can we just debate any definition and change it as we see fit?

"Approved" by who? You don't see the inherent power in creating an '"approved" definition - being able to decide what something does and does not include? An "approved definition" is inevitably based on the biases and interests of those creating it and is not in any way an objective process. This really does do a great job of addressing that very issue, please do take some time to read it: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/dictionary-definition-racism/ To the point of debating definitions and change them as we see fit - we can, we do, and we have throughout history done exactly that. An innocuous example would be the word "cool". Original definition in regards to temperature, now also commonly used to describe something that's good and/or pleasing. If you pay any attention to the OED, since that seems to be your reference, you'll notice that even they are constantly updating their dictionary, not only adding new words as they come into common usage, but updating definitions as times change. Even the definition you referenced makes a point of noting how the definition has changed over time: "Originally: the state or condition of belonging to the male or female sex; categorization or reference on the basis of sex (now rare); (in later use) prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." If it can have one meaning that's now rare, and another in later use, there is certainly room for continued change. Some of us are just getting there faster than others.

It takes time to change the definition of a word, you can't just decide that you will change the definition and then tell everyone that that is how it is. We clearly have a process in place that allows us to come up with definitions of words, I mean going by your logic we are both right because screw official definitions right? Your definition cannot be held as the right definition until a change happens.

Again, a process defined by who? Who controls the process controls the outcome. When the process is controlled by people with a particular lens, the outcome will reflect it. When you say it takes time, this definition of the words has been around for decades, so exactly how long should it take? I'm operating off of work done by a diverse body of the leading scholars and practitioners of social justice work; you're operating off a definition put forth by a group of white men. Think there might be some systemic reasons we disagree? Holding onto some "official definition" that is a reflection of the oppressive system that created it doesn't help move the world forward. You're welcome to hold on to whatever you want to hold on to, but at least recognize what it is you're holding on to in the process.

You cannot correct someone on a definition when your definition is not correct. That is all I was saying, I'm not saying that we should hold onto the current definition im just saying you were wrong in this one instance of correcting someone