Not semantics, but necessarily definitions.
It is not property if you cannot transfer it.
That is e.g. the reason why you today you only get a license to play a game, but not property of a copy of a game. So that you cannot transfer it, that is the whole point of that construct.
You can still do everythign esle with that game that you can do if it is your property. The only thing you cannot is to transfer it. (Okay, and change it, but that is also true of your body, or can you grow a third leg if you want to?)
You are honestly telling me my body is not proper to me? It's laughable, Lenny.
Prostitutes do not surrender (transfer through time and space) their sexual organs for money?
I do not exchange my body being at home for being at work moving to make money when I teach?
It's right there in the language. My body. You sound crazy, Lenny.
Well, can you imagine that you send your body out to do it while you do something else? Of course not, that does not work. Because your body is not your property but you. Back to square 1: Property is transferable.
That is because I and my body are together--one--for all practical intents and purposes. If it is not my body, then to whom does it belong, dearest Lenny?
And who made you the arbiter on what is and is not property? On what do you base your claims?
I just go with what is considered the definition of property for centuries or longer and which seems to me too is correct.
It belongs to you, but is not your property, as it is not the property of anyone else.
The air molecule in your lung also belongs to you for the moment, still it is not your property - and here we are talking about somethign that you could sell, we just all agreed to not do that, not own that, as indians agreed to not own rivers.