No, because gender is a psychological identity, whereas age and the presence or absence of limbs is physical. This is why biological sex is very different from gender. So the analogy is fatally flawed.
Much of the problems with these debates is that the laws fail to differentiate between gender and biological sex. Like most laws, they lag behind science and societal/cultural changes.
{date-time stamp}Monday, Nov 07, 2016 09:20 AM{/date-time stamp}
Someone asked,
So, the current definition of gender has always been that definition?
In the social sciences, the definition has been roughly the same since the 1950s. Since then, we would refer to "gender roles" that generally corresponded to biological sex. These are social constructions for the most part, with some biological correlates. For example, "the female does the breastfeeding" is a biologically based gender role where "the male earns the money" is a socially/culturally gender role. In addition to roles, gender refers to mannerisms, behaviors, and other non-biological indicators that we usually associate with sex. What has changed in the last 60 years or so is many of the things we used to associated with biological sex is now more accurately associated with gender. We know this because these characteristics don't require XX or XY chromosomes.