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.

👏👏👏

Peer (a noun) nobility or equal

Ultimately you cannot say that we can't have a word in the English language that means opposite things when there are already plenty of verbs, adverbs and even a few nouns that already do that

It doesn't mean I agree with the dictionary meaning, it's just this technicality is irrelevant.

Can I just say that I'm loving minmarshmallow's probably unintended work in educating any undecided lurkers?

A dust sized particle whether it is icing sugar or house dust, is indeed small and not a boulder though isn't it?

A screen is something big and flat that something is shown on or used to block something out. It isn't a round thing [for example, a boulder].

Heavy, I must point out that peer doesn’t quite cut it either.

Because ‘peer’ when discussing nobility came from being equal with other nobles. And wasn’t ‘peer’ in that respect from the word ‘pair’ from usage in France?

But we can tell what is meant from the context.

The whole point of using the word "woman" to describe a male person with a particular identity is to create confusion.

It is designed to undermine the primary meaning of the word and redefine women as people who perform certain stereotypes, rather than people who share a biological sex, so that men can be included.

You cannot refer to a male person as a woman without effectively changing the primary meaning of the word, i.e. modifying society's common understanding of what a woman is.

That's why this should be rejected. It's not about being kind.

And also, peer is also a verb so is a word traditionally that had different usages coming from different roots.

Woman has been a stable word for centuries. And the current attempt to expand the usage has no roots as such. The current expanded meaning is derived from a falsehood. Surely that is not legitimate?

At no point have I mentioned the phrase be kind.

I just pointed out that seine aaying you can't have a word that means opposites wasn't in fact true.

But given there are now posters arguing that established contronyms are in fact not contronyms then I'm not sure there's much point continuing

@Heavyraindropsarefallingonmyhead that's not the reason

Many words do have opposing definitions. But really, you want to include man and woman in that? You will accept changes in definitions of those 2 words that very effectively remove your ability to verbally identify males and females without confusion?

How far would you take that?

No I don't want to accept it, I have in fact said that in my posts.

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

This cannot be used as a reason why not because its an established convention already in the English language. But as I now have people telling me that established contronyms 'don't cut it' I don't think some people actually get the language anyway.

There are obvious issues with conflicting definitions of woman. You say 'women only' what does that mean. What definition are you using?

I'm not sure what point you're making though.

The examples you have given aren't used in the same way, we understand what is meant from the context.

If contronyms included using the word "cat" to refer to both cats and also some unspecified dogs, and everyone accepted this despite the fact that it was no longer possible to be sure whether someone is talking about a cat or a dog, you might have a point.

Okay I dont have a point, no one whose not 100% in alignment with the official MN GC remit has a point, no debate I get it.

Not only that, babyjellyfish but understanding the roots of the words and why they might seem to be opposing meanings when they are actually not fundamentally is important too.

When it refers to laws for protected groups. This is vital.

Oh dear.

A rather hyperbolic reaction to being challenged, isn’t it?

“no debate”

um. Debating with your assertion is exactly what we are doing though?

Okay I dont have a point, no one whose not 100% in alignment with the official MN GC remit has a point, no debate I get it.

There is debate. Most don't agree with you and are articulating why eloquently.

I think you need to look up the definition of "debate". Does it now mean not being countered?

The new Newspeak dictionary.

I don't think some people actually get the language anyway.

Hardly surprising when a much lauded dictionary joins the eejits in determining that sex can be whatever you want it to be.

And yes, this is a debate. That you find yourself in a minority doesn't change that.

Or maybe it does in these Days of Humpty

@Heavyraindropsarefallingonmyhead

At what point are adult human males considered the same as adult human females? Are they both men and women simultaneously?

The definitions of man and woman are based on fact - not fashion, not trends, not the decisions of some ruling class, by their very definition facts are black and white, immutable, non-changeable.

So, there is no debate - if something is fact then any debate is pointless.

So there is a deep irony in a group of people claiming that debate should be allowed so that they can change the meaning of something established as the opposite in biological fact - and then refusing to allow debate over their false assertions...

it makes an observer ask the question as to what is behind all of this...

• we all know what a man is and what a woman is
• we all know tht your biological sex is determined by your birth and is shown through genitals / hormones / etc.
• we all know that there is no biological process to change from one to the other
• we all know that the concept of gender is societally imposed / recognised and therefore irrelevant, it can change and develop and there is no issue in it so doing
• we all know that there is no issue in a boy liking 'girly things' or a girl wanting to play with 'boys' toys
• we all know that a child exploring what they enjoy has nothing to do with their biological sex
• we all know that whatever someone feels like in terms of their habits / dress preferences / activities, it doesn't make them any more male or female
• we all know that whatever you are born biologically is what you remain for ever
• we all know that surgery doesn't make a man into a woman or vice versa
• etc.

So, let's allow folks to crack on with how they dress, the activities they do, whether they 'feel feminine' etc. - none of that has anything to do with biological sex

And let's continue to protect biological sex as being male or female, boy or girl, man or woman...

and challenge anything which pretends that it is different
and challenge any attitude that doesn't allow people to be what they are born - male or female.

@akkakk very well put.