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.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_contranyms

it has a name!

They can if they want? The dictionary doesn't tell you what you can and can't say?

Do you think it makes sense to have two definitions of the same word which are in direct conflict with each other?

This. Adult human males are men, how can they be the same definition as adult human females? It's completely circular.

If people use the word in that way in real life then no I don't see the problem with the dictionary including it.

You don't think the shifting of a word that defines a discrete biological thing, to a word that renounces the biological definition of that thing - to be oppositional?

The mental gymnastics required to keep these plates spinning is quite something. Must be exhausting.

I don't think the dictionary is used to make laws. In fact I'm not sure what the dictionary is used for these days. Just a place to record what's happening with language. Generally new words or definitions only go into the dictionary once they've already gained traction.

The whole argument here about the redefining of the word woman in dictionaries is that this reflects changes in society. A change that is being pushed by a very vocal minority group. The same group that is pushing to get the same redefining word used in laws. See for example the Scottish government that has redefined the word woman to indeed mean the same dictionary definition Cambridge uses. Despite women objections, who apparently 'scaremongering' about the changes, even though women are desperately trying to get that same government to take into account evidence the objections are real and playing out. Easier to ignore women than that vocal minority. The Cambridge redefinition is just the tip of the iceberg and yes, it does end up with mixed sex sports and prisons. But that is ok, because of something or other.

So this argument isn't about the dictionary per se, it's just upset you that society has gone so far that the dictionary did that?

Sorry, are we now talking about needing permission to speak? The dicktionary is now a force of law? I can't keep up with all the useless definitions.

So if you go to the pet ship and tell them you want a cat, and they give you a Labrador because the dicktionary has included a new definition...you're fine with that, are you?

Why do you think it's not happening with animals or, indeed, anything else?

If we can still say what we please, why are you on here arguing that we can't reserve the word woman for adult human females?

I think you misunderstood my question mark there. I was saying that the dictionary doesn't tell you what you can and can't say. The whole cat canine thing is a terrible comparison because you just made it up so maybe you should drop that bit.
"If we can still say what we please, why are you on here arguing that we can't reserve the word woman for adult human females?" - YOU can say whatever you like, and use the word 'woman' in whatever way you wish. Other people might use it in a different way sometimes. And they can do that if they wish. If by 'reserving' a word you mean controlling how others use it then no, you can't do that.

As long as you keep pushing absurd definitions on people, you're going to keep being "misunderstood" because you're literally arguing the nonsensical. It's very interesting that you can see it so clearly when it applies to literally anything else.

There's nothing at all wrong with the canine cats analogy. You are dismissing it without reason because it perfectly illustrates what's wrong with a definition of "woman" that could include Mike Tyson if he woke up tomorrow and decided he wanted it to.

What are the men (adult human males) identifying with exactly if woman is being an adult human female? And if a man is an adult human male, as per the dictionary, how is he also a woman, an adult human female? It's gibberish political posturing.

If people started using the word 'cat' to mean 'dog', which they haven't, but if they did, for some reason, and people understood each other when they used the word that way, for some reason, and it became popular, then yes that could be added to the dictionary along with the original definition. So yeah I suppose it is the same as the woman thing, if it was real.
If Mike Dyson transitioned and people saw him as a woman then people might start using the word woman to refer to him yes. If that happened. And you wouldn't be able to stop it.

Tyson not Dyson

If Mike Dyson transitioned and people saw him as a woman

Vacuum cleaner salesman?

So...you are happy to receive an adult Labrador instead of a kitten if enough people tell you that that's what it is?

Maybe the problem here is that dictionary 'definitions' aren't really definitions. They're just descriptions of current usages of particular words - including those which are misuses of the normal accepted meaning, as with 'literally' and now 'woman'.

Why not a Dyson? Mike can identify as a hoover. What's the difference? Why can't hoover mean boxer?

Mike Tyson being a hoover is about as believable as him becoming a woman.

But then he wouldn't be alone in that, most of these definition 2 people aren't particularly convincing.

I did correct myself immediately on the Dyson thing

What I think is the point is that male and female are mutually exclusive categories. The difference here is that some people have the idea that a woman is something more than just being female, adult and human.

So this argument isn't about the dictionary per se, it's just upset you that society has gone so far that the dictionary did that?

Question though, minimarshmallows, is why aren't more people upset about the fact it has gone so far that woman now means anyone of either sex whoever want to call themselves that and then get to use anything that is actually meant for the female sex but now is open for anyone of the male sex. Why is society so hellbent on doing that to our daughters in the western world, whilst simultaneously lamenting the world can't protect the female people in the non western world?

But then what is the term for an adult human of the female sex?

But that does in fact then mean that we can't have words for our own biological sex, because we are forced to share all the words that exist for our own biological sex with any member of the opposite sex who takes a fancy to them.

You can actually "reserve words" for a certain class of people. You can't call yourself a solicitor or a doctor if you are not one, for example.

The same should be true of "woman" IMO.

(Definition 2 women) are (definition 2 literally) women.

We're going to need maths/computer notation to write English.