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.

Take it up with the pet shop owners in our fictional universe.

Woman(def2) is a subset of man(def1) but is neither equal to woman(def1) nor a subset of it.
It really is going to be easier to communicate in code soon.

I thought I was a woman but I don't "identify" as one or do I. Seriously I just go about my day. Maybe I'm lucky not to have to think about it.

If no person had a gender identity and no person ever talked about gender identity then we wouldn't have genders or transition. But people do, so we do.

cis just means standard right?

Yep. It's a meaningless in-group term, unless you subscribe to gender identity ideology.

So what does a trans woman's gender identity have to do with women?

What does it have to do with anyone else except themselves?

How is it different to having a personality?

Identifying as something and actually being that thing appear to be mutually exclusive IME.

we can still identify and define them as cats and not dogs, sharks or USB ports. That's the point.

Exactly. This poster doesn't seem to want to engage with that, or any form of thought experiment which exposes the absurdity of believing that words can mean two conflicting things and that that isn't a problem.

What’s their definition of bollocks? Does it say “see woman”

a) right, no matter how many times you showed me a photo of a shark and told me it was a kitten, I would not start believing it was a kitten. That's because we never use the word kitten to refer to a shark, in our universe.

I bet there are people who use the word shark to refer to a kitten though, when it's at the bitey stage.

Do you really believe things on that basis?
If I see a picture of a male and you tell me it's a woman, I won't believe it's of a woman because it isn't.

So anyone who identifys as a woman is a woman. Then what's the problem?

@minimarshmallowsmore

If different people in society use the same word in contradictory ways. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head

An example is "Woman", being used to mean both "a person who may have any personality but must have a female body" and "a person who need not have a female body but must have a specific personality".

This thread is in fact about exactly that. Perhaps you skim read a little over lightly?

Interestingly, "transphobia" is commonly understood by most people to mean "hatred or prejudice of a person because they choose to live as if they were the opposite sex", but there are also significant numbers of people who use it to mean "any disagreement with or limitations placed on the belief that humans have an innate gender identity that is more significant than and must always legally and socially supercede physical sex" and also significant numbers of people who understand it to mean "a bad faith term used to discredit anyone who does not believe that humans have an innate gender identity that is more significant than and must always legally and socially supercede physical sex by wrongly attributing their position to hate and prejudice".

I assume you would support a dictionary including all three definitions all three are currently being used and understood by many people?

I would not start believing it was a kitten. That's because we never use the word kitten to refer to a shark, in our universe.

Hence the question: how many people would need to start doing it before you'd accept it?

no matter how many times you showed me a photo of a shark and told me it was a kitten, I would not start believing it was a kitten.

And yet we must accept that women are males if enough people say so?

Are you telling me the shark in the picture self-identifies as a kitten?

Why can't it? What's a kitten identity? If it's anything like a female identity, it's not confined to kittens just as female identity isn't confined to females, begging the question of what it means at all. So why not?

And if it did, would you accept it as a kitten?

they don't have complex thoughts.

So what? Does your understanding of it being a shark rest upon what's going on in its head?

non-humans don't have gender identities

Yet we can still sex them. I don't have a gender identity. Am I not human?

The problem is that anyone who actually is a woman is not a woman according to that definition.

So anyone who identifys as a woman is a woman. Then what's the problem?

Because then what does "woman" actually refer to?

The fictional owner of the fictional shop is you and you're trying to fob me off with a fictional dog and I'm bloody allergic them.

How is this not an elaborate, drawn out joke! I know language grows and changes but this is bonkers! Yes, the dictionary shows word usage but should only provide the factual definition. Where does it stop? Biological women being referred to as cis-women even though we already have a suitable and established word, but trans women are women? I am so angry as a woman and mother of a young daughter!

I fully support personal identity, if a person wants to be transgender, transable, transracial or whatever, then we have created words for these optional identities and I will happily refer to them as such but I will not call a trans woman a woman, a non-disabled person a wheel chair user, or a white person black. Every time we accept this type of usage we disrespect the experience, culture and otherness of the non-trans groups.

I'm still perplexed why other trans identities are not being given the same power as gender, (disabled/race still have the same dictionary definition). I suspect it is because as a society we accept that the notion of being transabled or transracial is ridiculous and disrespectful...

So anyone who identifys as a woman is a woman. Then what's the problem?

The problem is living in the real world with 2 dimorphic, non interchangeable sexes.

So anyone who identifys as a woman is a woman. Then what's the problem?

What about the swathes of women who don't 'identify as women'. It's just their biological reality.

So they aren't women but men who 'identify as' are? Sounds confusing

An example is "Woman", being used to mean both "a person who may have any personality but must have a female body" and "a person who need not have a female body but must have a specific personality".

Yes, and the key here is, what is the specific personality/quality they claim unites women? No one either can or wants to answer.

So no matter how many times we showed you a photo of a shark and said it was a kitten, you would not under any circumstances believe it was a kitten, no matter how many people started saying it was a kitten and using the word "kitten" to describe sharks? Because it would still be a shark and not a kitten?

I mean, that's exactly the same reason why I will never believe that a trans woman is a woman, no matter how many times people say it.

I don't even know anymore!

Surely the dictionary can help? Oh.

They think they are being politically correct but they are eroding women's rights.

Yeah I feel like that meme where someone is trying to solve a complex equation. I'm just going to keep my mouth shut and hope one day I'll understand what's going on.