>>132875
That is the way language works. Yes, in this hypothetical, they're all dancers still, regardless of whatever other characteristics they possess. If one is wearing a blue shirt and the other a red shirt, they're both dancers nonetheless. One might be the worst person in the world and the other a saint, but so long as both are dancing, they are-- by definition-- dancers. Following your reasoning, we would need a term for every single possible combination of traits. Suddenly, the red-shirted and blue-shirted individuals dancing would each need their own term. That is "ridiculous".
In defense of Purrgem's appeal to the general public's perception: that is, again, the basis of language: consensus amongst a useful mass of people.