That depends on who you generally talk with. Dynamic typing/static typing are orthogonal to eg weak/strong typing and other type system features, that's estabilished terminology.
Nothing in your post contradicts mine, but you're using a contradictory tone, so I'm confused. Dynamic/static typing are indeed orthogonal to weak/strong typing; however, the OP seemed to be arguing that "SQL is typesafe because it is statically checked at runtime/JIT-compile-time" which is almost exactly the definition of "strong typing" and not generally what we mean by "type safe" (the latter typically refers to statically typed).
I think you misunderstood my point. You mentioned that "SQL isn't type-safe", which is NOT true. Any decent RDB engine allows to perform typechecking and validation of your query without executing it. This means that SQL is typesafe at compile time.
Fair enough. This is a small consolation for practitioners, especially since much SQL is often composed dynamically, and the engine can't tell you about where the composition went wrong (unlike Rust, TS, etc). Maybe if SQL had its own hygienic macro language, but I'm not sure how that would compare to libraries like Prisma.