Cambridge Dictionary updates definition of ‘woman’

a reply to: Creep Thumper

Of course. How could I forget? Allow me to go check my privilege.

It still doesn't anwer what a "woman" is.

I have always thought is was by defining sex characteristics.

Now I'm just some mysterious "concept" with no real definition.

What is a "woman" anyway?

As if we weren't adept at confusing men enough in the first place, now this.

*sigh*

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Xtrozero


In the end, the formal transition of this to include 2 + 2 = 5 as we see in the dictionary is not just some "they will grow out of it" event.

2+2=5 in a dictionary is not a problem.

The problem is when people say you MUST say 2+2=5

The problem lies when people trust that online 2+2=5, ergo, 2+2=5.

Or it wouldn't be online.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
But you have no right to be taken seriously.

The only people who will take you seriously are the people who take identity politics to an extreme and the people you terrify with your assertion.

Thankfully, the vast majority of us live in the undefined don't-really-care middle.

To take me serous is not the point as long as people are forced to accept me legally as whatever I suggest I want to be.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

2+2=5 in a dictionary is not a problem.

The problem is when people say you MUST say 2+2=5

The dictionary starts as a good foundation to factually prove something though I agree there are many layers, but definitions is one of them. You blow off the dictionary as nothing to see here, but it seems you use 1000s of words correctly to communicate exactly what you want to say. The danger is not so much us older people who read it and say boy that is BS, it is the kids who read it for the first time and see it as a truism.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
Like wealth, you can tell someone's leaning by the way they use it. You might want to look up the word legerdemain and consider its connotations.

What part of the phrase 'smattering of linguistic legerdemain" ' do you object to? This is a good example of how irony is often lost when a person interprets only one word of a phrase. Because you assumed I meant to convey some kind of legitimate authority, or expertise, you tried to exploit the lighthearted liberty I took to "put me in my place?'

Apologies, that was presumptuous of me, wasn't it? But it speaks to my point.

Meaning and use, my friend, meaning and use.

Usage doesn't change definition. Interpretation does.

If "use" changes meaning, why bother "eliminating standing definitions?" Why not just "use" them differently?

Rhetorical questions aside, I contend that these alterations are being foisted upon the 'word consuming world' simply because the 'authorities of words' want to change "meanings" not changing "usages." They want certain meanings to disappear, because they say so... because they want their own biases embraced with the air of long-standing legitimacy they factually lack.

Another irony is present in this exchange. How I used the word "legerdemain" caused issue... because it's "meaning" appeared to you erroneously "used." Go figure.

Lexicography a science? Let's take that word "science" in its fuzziest sense and agree.

Perhaps I should have said "Wordology" or "Wordonomy"... yes, Lexicography is a field which uses scientific discipline in the analysis of words and their practical applications. In any practical sense, it is a science.

... Even languages like French and Spanish that prescriptive Academies born of authoritarianism, are giving way on usage.

Academia was not borne of authoritarianism, that characteristic develops from those people in academia who associate their job with prideful vanity... and a sense of entitlement.

The academies of language are necessary because of the importance that people understand one another, it is not a body of political convenience. It is necessary to prevent ideas like "well, this doesn't mean that anymore" from being applied thoughtlessly, rendering the language inconsistent, weak, and functionally illogical.

Usage has always altered the meaning of words. How do you think American English and British English went their own ways?

If you are correct, dictionaries would be pretty much useless (except as contemporary guides to contemporary speech.) Any time someone attempts to read a book from a hundred years ago, they would need a hundred-year-old dictionary to understand it.

We could coin a word. Let's say Cheesism.

We could... let's not. I get your drift and concede that the "source" of language is the people... however, it does not rise in a spontaneous manner... which is why we have traditionally trusted bodies of specialists, focused on keeping the very important tool of language from losing its usefulness by becoming inconsistent and self-contradictory... (that's lexicology, by the way.)

Thank you for expanding my vocabulary... "snollygoster"... , I'll try not to internalize that word or assume you were referring to me.

*thinking* . . . the definition of the word
woman is being transitioned,
So does this make Caitlyn Jenner
a lesbian rather than a transgender ?
(considering he is married to a woman)
Does anyone really even care ?
I think we are being played, gaslight . . .
beguiled by salesmen, so as to distract.
Has anyone noticed how t.v. 'news'
has morphed ? *obvious*
Most 'news' is not news anymore, but
disguised ads, promos,
plugs, and patronizing 'entertainment'
Psychological warfare is being used to
dumb us down.
We've become the tower of babble,
debating useless sh@t, it's
intentional planning by our overlords.
btw WHY even have the words Man, Woman,
when
there is already the word Transgender ?
Their intent is to take over our minds,
next . . .
our souls.
Be On Guard

________________

a reply to: chris_stibrany

yeh seems like its all a part of some plan

when you see ats threads with titles like this one you posted

and then these in recent

"The erasure of biological female rights continues and accelerates in Federal court"

"
Bill Gates explaining how we need to lower the population of earth to save the planet."

makes you think, how might we reduce human population
well you can start by removing the rights of women to have children
and you can start by redefining what it means to be a woman.

yeh its not suspect at all eh

its a very multi faceted attack
hard to see all the parts at once
but there is a plan at work here or maybe a few all at once

Girls and Boys -Definition is still the same tg.
Or there would defiantly be a fight ! !
dictionary.cambridge.org...
dictionary.cambridge.org...


________________