I gave you references, you're wanting something that's not realistic, because I'm not claiming they used the word as we understand it today, but it wasn't solely used to refer, mistakenly, to sex, but also was used to refer to kinds, particular in gender categories of languages, but also in terms of kinds in a more general sense, though that is more obscure a use. If you're literally going to ignore them as if they're not there, you're expecting too little of people who actually care to check
From OED, like I did before, uses of this definition are included as citations, you literally cannot ignore this unless you're intentionally obfuscating
"The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead's Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.
1968 Life 21 June 89 When the separation of fashions according to gender began to vanish, retailers discovered a bonanza."
~~~~
The pronouns in terms of the basics are not what's in debate, because the distinction is using them to refer to a biologically male person with the feminine pronouns because they're a transwoman, the new pronouns are a whole other discussion in terms of linguistic history I'm not going into because it's not germane to the primary aspect of gender as supposedly super recent when, no, it's been a concept as far back as the 50s in psychology regarding gender identity.
~~~~
Not sure what you understand race to be, but it's not based in scientific fact because it's not a category that is remotely used anymore to refer to biological realities, the differences in terms of physical appearances not distinct in terms of biological racial categories, but ethnic categories or sociological racial categories if you insist on using the word. Methinks you might be confusing race as physical observations with race as a physical distinction between people of those races (black people are not genetically different from white people in any noticeable fashion that's not variations within human genetics as a whole, they are at best a subspecies the same as whites, Asians, etc, in the human species as a whole)
~~~~
Not sure where you get the notion that I approved of all the examples you used and I also pointed out that your argument has the issue, I'm not claiming they're all equal in the first place, you're equivocating and committing category errors to remotely suggest transage or such is comparable to transgender as having any validity or that it would be approved by all people. I'm not putting a political label on myself in this discussion, it's hardly relevant to make this that kind of issue when your concern is supposedly with its truth, not the ideological components that are separate from the reality of the phenomenon itself.
If you want to POINT OUT the hypocrisy, instead of just claiming it's self evident, by all means point it out instead of insisting you've "won" the argument and stomp off like a child
