No. I&#x27;m sick of this game.  You clarification of the definition isn&#x27;t clarification.  It&#x27;s unnecessary linguistic prescriptivism.<p>If you want to talk about the type of sexism also often refereed to as &quot;institutional sexism&quot; then that&#x27;s fine.  If you want to call it just &quot;sexism&quot; thats fine too (but puts an unnecessary complication on the reader). But &quot;sexism&quot; is an overloaded term whether you want it to be or not.  Just like I can&#x27;t say &quot;Bi-monthly now and forever forward only means every other month, and never means twice a month,&quot; you can&#x27;t just wave away the regular-prejudice definition of sexism just because you want to.<p>Also, this &quot;academic definition&quot; meme is bullshit.  Academic writing is about clarity and making sure the reader understands the author&#x27;s meaning.  So, if at the beginning of the paper the author clarifies when they use &quot;foo&quot; they only mean one of the 3 possible definitions of foo, that&#x27;s just good writing.  But if they say &quot;definition 2 of foo isn&#x27;t actually foo, it&#x27;s just bar.  For any and all uses of foo, including outside this paper&quot; they&#x27;re a hack.