You can't "lock" something that doesn't exist.

[Melichoir]

Gender-lock for classes is the term that was used and commonly known. But I've never seen gender-lock being used in any other MMOs for races that didn't have the opposite gender when there was no model to begin with.

Humor me then, what would you call it when a player race only has one available sex when it is clear that in regards to in game lore and descriptions, that it has 2?

Cause the argument you are putting forward is this:
Even though the game directly references them in lore, we have dev precedence with making sure there is a male and female variant on all the races once ARR kicked off, this ISNT gender-locking cause the game assets dont exist (even though I have 0 proof of this), so Gender locking is the wrong Terminology.

Mind you, as I pointed out before, people who make this point seem to understand quite clearly (or claim to do so) what is being directly referenced when people say genderlocking Viera and Hrothgar, and having a discussion about the correct terminology does nothing to address the core complaint. In fact, as the OP directly does, they discuss symantics as an explaination of why "Gender locking isnt happening" and people are complaining about nothing. It is quite literally "Well the in game assets dont exist, so you really cant clal it genderlocking (even though I completely understand that the complaint is people want the male and female varients of a race, and were only getting one, thus the player's choice when it comes to selection of a race is being "Locked" into a single gender.) But its not genderlocking cause....semantics. So just be happy, ok! Stop complaining."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a quick aside,

I do think there are bad arguments regarding other aspects of this debate. As also mentioned before, the Sexism/Homophobia PoV are also not productive. Also having the mentality that "We're paying so things need to happen this minute" argument is also a non-starter. IMO, the conversation revolves around 2 points:

1) Feelings about the current situation: That is the happiness, positivity, annoyance, frustration, negative vibes, or whatever else theyre feeling regarding the fact that we are getting two races where we are only allowed to choose one sex. This point should be the expression aspect where people can just say how they feel about the situation. This is part one of hte conversation. Its purely subjective, people are just voicing their thoughts and feelings. There hsouldnt be any real criticism at this point cause people are entitled to hold their opinions and feelings.

2) How the Devs should address the situation: This is where people should voice how the devs should address it. These are suggestions, ranging from "Do nothing" to "Work hard to get those sexes out and in our hands ASAP." Whatever the view, however, reality has to be a part of it. So no, the Devs cant just drop every aspect of the entire company and game to make these two things the players want. There will be a time component, of course. Nor should it really be a thing to suggest the devs do something so egregiously out of character, such as "Make the models and make them background NPCs to dangle in front of players, but never implement." Neither of these suggestions is something the Devs can use, or we can discuss without devolving into idiocy.

That being said and coming full circle, the semantics argument does not fit into either point. It's got nothing to do wiht the feelings regarding the actual decision made, nor is it a suggestion for the devs. If you want to discuss the colloquial use of Genderlocking, open up a thread, talk about it. But bringing it up as a talking point where you are essentially saying "BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO POINT ONE, WE NEED TO ALL AGREE ON THE TERMINOLOGY" and where the redefinition of terminology ends up preventing point 1 from happening due to people not agreeing on definitions, is a derailment tactic. It does nothing to address what should be addressed.