> It can either refer to their sex or their gender
That seems unlikely and definitely unproven.
We're told gender expression is individual, so the gendered concepts you hold for 'woman' aren't going to be the ones I hold. Thus is seems unlikely that we're referring to gender or nobody would be able to understand each other.
Also, we refer to people by the same pronouns whether they're awake or sleeping, cross dressing or not, which changes their gender expression, but not their sex.
> If we refer to sex, a woman/lady is someone with a vagina.
Which we do. Yes.
> So yes, if you call someone a mail lady, you literally are describing her as a mail carrier with a vagina.
No. I'm also not describing her as a bipedal humanoid. Some things are just expected unless you say otherwise.
> the cute ginger mail lady with blue eyes
Yes, lady. Okay, so no suggestion.
> But in most situations, that would be quite inappropriate.
That seems unlikely and definitely unproven.
We're told gender expression is individual, so the gendered concepts you hold for 'woman' aren't going to be the ones I hold. Thus is seems unlikely that we're referring to gender or nobody would be able to understand each other.
Also, we refer to people by the same pronouns whether they're awake or sleeping, cross dressing or not, which changes their gender expression, but not their sex.
> If we refer to sex, a woman/lady is someone with a vagina.
Which we do. Yes.
> So yes, if you call someone a mail lady, you literally are describing her as a mail carrier with a vagina.
No. I'm also not describing her as a bipedal humanoid. Some things are just expected unless you say otherwise.
> the cute ginger mail lady with blue eyes
Yes, lady. Okay, so no suggestion.
> But in most situations, that would be quite inappropriate.
Right, right, human attraction is verboten.