It seems my historical critical approach to this topic has not stirred much response. I know not everyone reasons in the same way however, i's my experience debates about definitions and subtleties have the unfortunate effect of elevating an otherwise morally untenable position. The forest is missed for the trees, as it were.
I certainly see the expanded redefinition of the WT and others as a semantic argument not arrived at through straightforward reading the text in context. But more fundamentally, I see it as a strictly sectarian and hence arbitrary matter. Semantic arguments are a favorite of moralists who measure piety by strictness and asceticism. Debating them is only interpreted as a sign of moral weakness. Yet even the most conservative of Muslims and Jews regard the subject as of secondary importance to saving a life based upon their reading of the Torah. It appears the Gospel writers saw Jesus as feeling similarly.
For a modern student of religious studies, the text represents a Proto-Orthodox polemical attempt to revise the story of Xtian beginnings. The purpose of this pericope was twofold, a roundabout refutation of Paulinist positions on sexuality and ceremonial uncleanness and the retrojection of unity between the historically divided branches of Xtianity. Some might add a third purpose, that of supporting a central hierchal church structure. I am not presently convinced this is evidenced by the story details, but it certainly has influenced the translating.