Go ahead and quote definitions, you just told DDD that common definitions don't mean squat.
ah, this is exactly why this has gone nowhere. You can't read.
I never said that to DDD. I actually went on about how reportive definitions DO matter, and that I wasn't saying they didn't, just that I disagreed with one of them.
I guess if you can't read then this will never end.
I'm just making a point that you aren't willing to accept yet.
My sentiments exactly.
Sorry, it's you that can't read, won't admit a mistake, avoids the tough questions, make it up as you go, full of IRS, acts like the expert, etc. I could go on and on and it's all true

Remember this dummy?
I don't disagree with the concept of a reportive definition, I am saying I disagree with this particular reportive definition. Reportive definitions are based on common understanding in greater society. I am certainly free to disagree with society as a whole on certain topics. I do everyday, and so do you I'm sure.
In this case, the only time I referred to "sexual orientation" the reportive definition that I disagree with, was to state there is no gene for it. In making that statement, the fact that I disagree with the reportive definition is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not there is a gene for it. It was my other statement that Term claims contradicts that statement, and in that statement, I did NOT use the term sexual orientation. Term simply attempted to apply "sexual orientation" to my statement to find a contradiction.
If you are able to disagree with whatever ones you want then they essentially don't matter. You can't follow simple logic. No wonder we are at this point.