IN both of my dictionaries, one published in 1960, the other one, published in 1989, both have it at the sames place...in sixth position. And just in case your math skills are as abjectly lacking, as are your reading comprehension, reasoning, and logic, 1989 is FIVE YEARS LATER than 1984, which is the published date of whatever version of a dictionary you own and quoted.
No, you've lost your "case" long ago! I did NOT "help make your case" in any way and I, unlike you, have proved my case over and over and over and OVER again; ad nauseaum.
The far flung assumption that you've thrown out, saying that for all YOU know ( and who are YOU anyway, but a biliously childish nobody, without any expertise whatsoever in words and word derivations ?), the use of the word VIRGIN, in connection with a man, in 1300 was a homosexual, absolutely ruins your protestations!
So, who used the word VIRGIN in connection with a man in 1300 and proved to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was a homosexual! Come on.....I double dog dare ya! I TRIPLE dog dare ya! Put up or shut up; you absolute waster of bandwidth, time, and energy.
In what position is the definition of virgin as a man in the most recent edition?
Still number 6?
And what is the number 1 definition of virgin the most recent edition: still only a female?
The far flung assumption that you've thrown out, saying that for all YOU know ( and who are YOU anyway, but a biliously childish nobody, without any expertise whatsoever in words and word derivations ?), the use of the word VIRGIN, in connection with a man, in 1300 was a homosexual, absolutely ruins your protestations!
So let's see--
I lose my credibility by saying "for all I know"?
Well I guess a "biliously childish nobody' has no credibility.