Cambridge Dictionary updates definition of ‘woman’

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Nice word soup.

Language is organic. It evolves. It changes. Some changes stick. Some changes don't. It's been that way since Ugg grunted his first word.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Language has never been about facts and logic. Ever.

It is about usage.

Dictionaries do not prescribe meaning. They describe how words are used. Take "enormity", for example.

It makes zero difference if a dictionary I have never used and probably will never use thinks that's how the word woman is being used. If that's what happening out here in the real world, it will stick. If that's not what is happening, it will be out in the next edition.

I can't imagine why anyone would be upset about the evolution of language but I am suspicious of anyone who thinks lexicographers should be told what to write. As would George Orwell. You should read his work sometime.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

You just negated yourself with the sentence ' I am suspicious of anyone who thinks lexicographers should be told what to write. As would George Orwell. You should read his work sometime.'

And yes I read his novel.

THEY ARE BEING TOLD WHAT TO WRITE.. why else would they change it on a political whim?

I went to grad school for linguistics for Christ sakes . For centuries definitions on LOGIC have held...
why?
because NATURE hasn't changed.
Did your wife or husband suddenly become a baby bearing hermaphrodite? Or mutilated person?
I didnt think so.
What is your horse in this race?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: chris_stibrany

Language has never been about facts and logic. Ever.

It is about usage.

Dictionaries do not prescribe meaning. They describe how words are used. Take "enormity", for example.

It makes zero difference if a dictionary I have never used and probably will never use thinks that's how the word woman is being used. If that's what happening out here in the real world, it will stick. If that's not what is happening, it will be out in the next edition.

I can't imagine why anyone would be upset about the evolution of language but I am suspicious of anyone who thinks lexicographers should be told what to write. As would George Orwell. You should read his work sometime.

Respectfully, I disagree.

I have a smattering of linguistic legerdemain, and I can tell you that "language" arose from logic and fact. Communication is not useful if transient fads and usage can simply "alter" the meaning of words. Note I said meaning, not "use." People are free to use words as they see fit, for any reason whatsoever. Facts are not based upon fleeting feelings. Lexicology is a science, not a social order. We can note that a word use has changed, but that doesn't change the meaning - it changes the use.

This isn't about changing a name or designation, this is about changing a meaning, from distinct and scientifically sound, to fuzzy and subjective... if you want to use words that way - then by all means do so... if you want to retroactively alter the meaning of a word... no one simply "has that license to do so"... not even Cambridge.

You want a word that embraces everything projected as feminine applied to men?... If there is none... invent a new word.

Wait. There is a word "transgender."

Why can't they just own that word?

Transgender: Meaning "adopting those qualities naturally attributed to the opposite sex."

a reply to: chris_stibrany

The Cambridge Dictionary has updated its definition of “woman” to include anyone who “identifies as female” regardless of their sex at birth.

Well of course they did. Because transgender people are not mentally ill and do not have any symptoms linked with schizophrenia, and this fairly new field in psychology has all the answers. It's soon to be 2023, get with the times people.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Language is symbolic.

When you and sit across a table from one another in chairs, we use the words "table" and "chair" to refer to the pieces of furniture in question. Now it is likely as I write this that despite probable differences in your mental image of "chair" and "table" and mine, they are alike enough that we both know exactly what is meant when the two words are used. That's why we can successfully communicate using written language.

Words have clear and concise meaning.

This modern trend to redefine words creates confusion. We aren't all talking and writing about the same thing anymore. We talk past each other.

a reply to: Moon68

Right there with you, I'll bring the whiskey and cigars.

a reply to: Maxmars

Indeed, definition specifics are a requirement for clarity & understanding.

Otherwise, the chosen words that make up the handle Whodathunkdatcheese might really mean Whodathunkiprefersheep if we allow willy-nilly "variety" of definition.

The BIG question now is can someone identify as any ethnicity? Me being a 6'5" white guy can I tomorrow be a Black female just because I say it now, and next week I can be a male Chinese?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

It makes zero difference if a dictionary I have never used and probably will never use thinks that's how the word woman is being used. If that's what happening out here in the real world, it will stick. If that's not what is happening, it will be out in the next edition.

I can't imagine why anyone would be upset about the evolution of language but I am suspicious of anyone who thinks lexicographers should be told what to write. As would George Orwell. You should read his work sometime.

Its not just one thing, but a collection of many events working together based on the views of a very small minority. You can get fired now for not agreeing a biological male is female, so there are some real-world consequences here. I game with a trans and one day they said that their were now legally female by law and even their driver license says it too, so I need to get on board with it as I have a tendency to use the wrong pronouns, but not on purpose.

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. What I truly find funny is that we should no longer use trans female to identify a biological male with a female brain and so they are 100% female, but we need to use cis female now to identify a real female.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

I can't imagine why anyone would be upset about the evolution of language

It's a devolution of a language...

In recent years, there has been an increase in the devolution of our language, particularly with leftist cults, where words are changed in order to control and manipulate your thoughts.

It is a form of brainwashing.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well, considering male humans share 99.9% of DNA with each other regardless of race.

And Male humans share 98.5% of DNA with female humans.

Then yeah, logically speaking it would make more sense to identify as another ethnicity. As long as you still identify as male.

Considering Male Humans also share 98.5% of DNA with male chimpanzees. Then identifying as a chimp should be totally reasonable.

Meanwhile body dysphoria manifests in multiple ways. Which includes people wanting to take away their own eyes or legs. These people are of course diagnosed with mental disorders. But wanting to take away genitalia and perfectly working sexual organs? No. No mental disorder.

As you can see logic and reasoning is clearly out of the window on this one.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

You have read his novel? You do know he wrote more than one and many essays explaining what he was thinking, don't you?

Of course you do. Just like someone who studied linguistics at grad school thinks English is a prescriptive language.

Let's assume you mean 1984. Remember the bit where he is being tortured by O'Brien? O'Brien represents the inflexible official party line. Smith represents the freedom to disagree.

Now look at your position in this "debate". Nobody has told the dictionary what to write. It describes what is already out there. So who is being inflexible? You with your set, "logical" definition or the dictionary with it's multiple definitions based on language as it is being used?

Interesting last line. Not everyone is blindly partisan, fitting squarely into one side or another. But I will always be ready to throw brickbats at anyone who misuses Orwell to justify their own narrow bias.

originally posted by: imitator


In recent years, there has been an increase in the devolution of our language, particularly with leftist cults, where words are changed in order to control and manipulate your thoughts.

It is a form of brainwashing.

Interesting position. Very similar to that taken by many 20th century dictators who legislated to protect their language.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The BIG question now is can someone identify as any ethnicity? Me being a 6'5" white guy can I tomorrow be a Black female just because I say it now, and next week I can be a male Chinese?

Of course you can say it. That's your right.

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.

originally posted by: ketsuko


Language is symbolic...Words have clear and concise meaning.

This modern trend to redefine words creates confusion.

You can't have both. The very symbolism is what makes language fluid.

Words don't have clear and concise meaning beyond elemenatary school.

And redefining words is not a modern trend. Take the word "nice". Growing from the Old French "necius", meaning ignorant, it originally meant ignorant. By the nineteenth century, it meant pleasant. By the time I started writing seriously back in the late 80s, its meaning ranged from pleasant to harmless to useless.

originally posted by: Maxmars

Respectfully, I disagree.

I have a smattering of linguistic legerdemain, and I can tell you that "language" arose from logic and fact. Communication is not useful if transient fads and usage can simply "alter" the meaning of words. Note I said meaning, not "use." People are free to use words as they see fit, for any reason whatsoever. Facts are not based upon fleeting feelings. Lexicology is a science, not a social order. We can note that a word use has changed, but that doesn't change the meaning - it changes the use.

This isn't about changing a name or designation, this is about changing a meaning, from distinct and scientifically sound, to fuzzy and subjective... if you want to use words that way - then by all means do so... if you want to retroactively alter the meaning of a word... no one simply "has that license to do so"... not even Cambridge.

You want a word that embraces everything projected as feminine applied to men?... If there is none... invent a new word.

Wait. There is a word "transgender."

Why can't they just own that word?

Transgender: Meaning "adopting those qualities naturally attributed to the opposite sex."

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.

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

Lexicography a science? Let's take that word "science" in its fuzziest sense and agree. It's still descriptive. Even languages like French and Spanish that prescriptive Academies born of authoritarianism, are giving way on usage.

We could coin a word. Let's say Cheesism. If it catches on, it will in the next edition. If it doesn't, it will fade into obscurity like the word snollygoster. That's how it works.

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

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

I have to disagree. 2+2=5 is most certainly a problem. It is objectively wrong. It's become all to commonplace for any "truth" in this day and age to be subjective to ones feelings.

originally posted by: Moon68

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

I have to disagree. 2+2=5 is most certainly a problem. It is objectively wrong. It's become all to commonplace for any "truth" in this day and age to be subjective to ones feelings.

It's only a problem if you're racist. Haven't you heard?