Aha! The authors of dictionaries are reporters, not referees - they simply describe current usage.
We have to abide by those reporters otherwise we have linguistic anarchy. DEMS DA RULES. You're a doctor. You have to abide by medical terms defined by reporters and/or referees. You would find it difficult to practice if you referred to malaria as Congestive Chills or syphilis as French Pox. The term "Scrivener's Palsy" was used for years to describe writer's cramp. Would you argue that "writing" is prerequisite for that diagnosis? Archaic usage is irrelevant in this context. You can't make up your own rules to win the argument. As a society, we agree to abide by rules set by arbiters and referees so that we can understand each other. If we were having this argument in French, it would be case closed. They have real referees - no reporters.
When Cisco sells a wireless router, they are not selling one without wires. On the contrary, there are at least two wires hanging out of the back of the device. Perhaps we should agree to use cordless. Strange how that term has not come to mean "wireless".