To think that the Cambridge Dictionary doesn’t know what a woman is?

[HoofWankingSpangleCunt]

Cambridge Dictionary changes definition of woman

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d0d69d58-7b0c-11ed-bcd8-855e06175970?shareToken=145378cb575d0ff12d97278f7355f1c8

This has fucked me right off this morning.

Aaahhhh I seeeeee!

😴

Hence the question: how many people would need to start doing it before you'd accept it?
Using the word kitten to refer to a shark would have to be in common parlance first. That's not the same as a bunch of people telling me something. If kitten was just another word for shark then I would agree immediately that it is a type of kitten.

And yet we must accept that women are males if enough people say so?
Generally when somebody has transitioned I will refer to them as whatever they have transitioned to.

So what? Does your understanding of it being a shark rest upon what's going on in its head?
In the case of the shark it has nothing really going on in its head. If you're talking about the fictional universe, I don't know why we refer to sharks and kittens there, I don't know enough about it.

Yet we can still sex them. I don't have a gender identity. Am I not human?
It's really difficult to sex a tortoise. If you don't know the sex of your tortoise you might impose a gender identity onto it. You can impose a gender identity onto any animal. It doesn't have one itself. I have a friend who uses they/them pronouns for her cat. That's not the cat's own gender identity. I don't see the relevance here though of any of this. Yes you are human. I didn't say people without a gender identity aren't human, I said animals don't have a gender identity.

Using the word kitten to refer to a shark would have to be in common parlance first.

So what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

It's really difficult to sex a tortoise. If you don't know the sex of your tortoise you might impose a gender identity onto it.

Why on earth would you do that? Gender and sex don't mean the same thing. If you don't know the sex of your tortoise you might guess and go with it. 'Gender' is a meaningless concept with regards to tortoises.

Generally when somebody has transitioned I will refer to them as whatever they have transitioned to.

They haven't transitioned to the opposite sex though, because that is not scientifically possible.

If you refer to a trans woman as a trans woman, I guess you would be referring to them as what they have transitioned to: a male person who uses feminine pronouns, has changed their name, wears stereotypically feminine clothes, has taken cross sex hormones, has had surgery to make themselves superficially resemble a woman, or has done some but not all of these things.

If you refer to a trans woman as a woman, you are doing the equivalent of referring to a shark as a kitten.

I'd argue that it is also a fairly meaningless concept with regard to humans.

I would dispute that it is common usage to refer to a transwoman as a woman, they are very definitely referred to as transwomen by the majority, they are not nor are seen as equivalent to women.

The dictionary needs to understand the difference between the real world and twitter world.

That kitten with the big teeth is very cute 😍

I skim read this and it doesn't answer the questions.

You keep banging on about common use of the term, but you admitted that no matter how many people tell you that was a kitten, you wouldn't accept it. So why do we have to accept that a male person can be a woman?

You claim that the shark has no identity (without knowing this) but it doesn't change the fact that it's a shark and you know it. It doesn't need any particular identity to be a shark.

You say that it's hard to sex a tortoise; it's not hard for someone who knows how to do it and anyway, it being hard to observe the sex doesn't mean the sex isn't there. The only way you can know it's hard to sex a tortoise is if it's possible. Because it will have one sex or the other.

And if you can't sex humans any more easily than you can a tortoise, check with your parents before you buy a Mothers' Day card and for God's sake stay off Tinder.

What you are arguing here is patently absurd, which is why you can't do it. It is Newspeak based on doublethink. And the only reason you can even argue it with us is because you know as well as we do what an actual woman is. Otherwise, what's to discuss?

Someone may have done this first: (From the Cambridge Dictionary)

Meaning of definition in English
definition
noun
definition noun (EXPLANATION)
B2 [ C ]
a statement that explains the meaning of a word or phrase:
a dictionary definition

[ C ]
a description of the features and limits of something:

So it isn't supposed to reflect the usage, especially when that usage isn't universal.

If kitten was just another word for shark then I would agree immediately that it is a type of kitten.

But you wouldn't try to give the fish-type kitten a cuddle and feed it dreamies.

I agree with your last point that the whole thing is patently absurd. I'm not the one who brought up sharks, cats and dogs. I am the one who brought up tortoises and I regret that now. You can have a discussion about trans people without bringing irrelevant made up crap into it.

I agree with your last point that the whole thing is patently absurd.

It's no more absurd than your assertion that Mike Tyson could wake up tomorrow morning and be a woman. It's almost as if you're intentionally suspending your disbelief when it comes to women even though you get it just fine no matter how many people tell you a shark can be a kitten.

It's not irrelevant crap though.

You are objecting to describing animals as what they are not, whilst maintaining that it makes sense to describe people as what they are not.

A trans woman is no more a woman than a shark is a kitten.

Language is important
Face is fact
Language is designed to support / reflect / explain fact - not to deliberately obfuscate and confuse.

There is very clever co-ordination of language going on here by a small bunch of people who seem to have some strange agenda (difficult to know what it is though it seems to be the eradication of women as a concept which is strange as women exist as fact not a concept!)

However, pick it apart gently and it unravels fast - when you see arguments such as:

• it is when a man identifies as a women - well that one is simple, using the word identify confirms that they are not that thing - you can't identify as what you are you can only identify as something different, so in that wording there is confirmation that the person concerned is not a woman.
• transition - note the choice of words, if there was a belief that the final result was that the person who was once biologically male is now biologically female then the appropriate word would be change - this person was male and has now changed to female - however that word is not used because it is blatantly inaccurate, you can not change from male to female - instead transition is used, because when there are 100 indicators of 'male' and 100 indicators of 'female' then transition can cover the change of a couple and suggest that it is a journey with a final end - even though that end can never be reached. So do some plastic surgery and give a different appearance suggests a change but as the person is still biologically their original sex they use transition to suggest what is not actually happening...

When you start to explore the language you spot these clever nuances which try to pretend something which can't happen. And when the subtlety is challenged that is when people try to change definitions...

but it is fake - you can not change biology - end of, so let's stop playing silly games with the words - they have a meaning, it is known and accepted there is no consensus to change it so leave it as it is where there is clarity rather than bringing in discord and deceit

it might be asked - what does it matter - the answer is that it matters a lot - at one end there are too many children and teenagers being confused by mixed and inaccurate messages they are being given and being sent down paths they should not be entering - damaging mental and physical health in many instances, and at the other end it threatens spaces designed for one sex - harmful to many - so while some people think they are being clever and playing games, they are actually damaging many people out there - it is important that this is prevented.

In the case of the shark it has nothing really going on in its head

How would you know? A shark's inner world is potentially as real to it as someone's "gender identity".

I await for the entries to change for 'child' then. Because we know there are quite a few adults who identify as a 'child'.

I wonder if the dictionaries will indulge that change?

How about other categories of people that have factual and provable definitions as well as legal meaning? Disabled for instance? Do we think the dictionary will write an alternative meaning for those who 'identify as disabled'?

We can't have a word meaning both a thing and the exact opposite of a thing at the same time.

Either woman is a biological concept - in which no male is ever a woman

Or

It's an identity statement - in which case a small number of people with natal male anatomy and a small number of people with natal female anatomy are women and the rest of us are just lumped into an 'other human' category

The first usage is the one which enables us to protect the rights of people who have been, and continue to be, discriminated against because of their biology. It's hard to understand why people don't care about doing that.

We can't have a word meaning both a thing and the exact opposite of a thing at the same time.

Like for example:

Cleave: to cling to or to separate
Dust: to get rid of dust or to add it (e.g. to dust icing on a cake)
Screen: to conceal or to broadcast
Sanction: to permit or to penalise

I'm not saying woman should fall under this umbrella but from a purely dictionary based point of view this is a perfectly possible use of a word, to mean opposite things

Astonishing and horrifying. Dystopian. They redefine our words for ourselves so that there is no longer a word that means "just us". I will never understand how all of this came to happen or why so many rolled over and accepted it. Not just accepted it: championed it. And they did so even though every one of them knew it was bollocks.

They are verbs.

Woman is a noun.

You can have a discussion about trans people without bringing irrelevant made up crap into it.

how can you have a discussion about transpeople without bringing the irrelevant made up crap that is gender ideology into it? Without the gender bollocks, no one could be said to ‘transition’. As humans cannot change sex, then transition must relate to gender, which is just a stupid set of stereotypes and rules that changes constantly. I.e made up irrelevant crap.

HTH

Yes and the context makes it quite clear which meaning you're using - it is in TRAs interests to obscure which meaning of woman is being used as that is the smoke screen with which they pretend some males have more in common with actual real females than all other males do.

Much as I like the KittyShark I would like to introduce you @minimarshmallowsmore to a Land Shark. Real name applied to these creatures by their owners, in many countries across the globe, for many many years.

So which is it? A dog? Or a shark?

Or is it a sheep? Yet another identity bestowed upon it by many, many people.

Come on... which is it? Hundreds of thousands of people across the world really do use those alternative words... I am one of them! Does that make this dog a shark or a sheep?

Or are you simply resolved to spout such rubbish for the cause ?