Beware the petition to OUP re dictionary definitions of women

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

There is a petition doing the rounds to change the definition of "woman" in the dictionary, and it all sounds very good.

Have you ever searched online for the definition of a woman? 'Bitch, besom, piece, bit, mare, baggage, wench, petticoat, frail, bird, bint, biddy, filly' - these are the words which the Oxford's English Dictionary online tells us mean the same as ‘woman’. This sexist dictionary must change.

This petition is to ask Oxford University Press to:

^Eliminate all phrases and definitions that discriminate against and patronise women and/or connote men’s ownership of women;
Enlarge the dictionary's entry for ‘woman’;^

Sounds good, but then tucked in at the end

Include examples representative of minorities, for example, a transgender woman, a lesbian woman, etc.

Disappointingly this is from the Fawcett society.

I'm OK with rude words. What I'm not OK with is dictionaries lying to people.

I was thinking about that clip just the other day! His eyes!! He hated Posie showing him up.

So they've come for the dictionary definitions at last.

Pretty sure that one clip has ruined Harrop's plans for a career in media. Nobody wants to book someone with the crazy eyes unless they're trying to make the point that the perspective they represent is less than rational.

Dictionaries should record current and historical usage, not whatever political attitudes are on trend at any given time.

Keep the derogatory words, for goodness sake. A dictionary is a reflection of language and its use, it's not a propoganda outlet to have the nasty words expunged from it. Argh, this erasure of language drives me up the wall.

I saw this on a friend's thread a few weeks ago and commented that I wouldn't be signing the petition because there are no sub categories of women. A few more people also commented and no one disagreed with me.

And there is virtually no circumstance in which I won't be pleased to see that clip

www.lexico.com/en/definition/transwoman

www.lexico.com/en/definition/transsexual

If the dictionary already says these are pejorative terms I don't see why any change is needed.

The video was ace. I’ve seen it before, but given a recent thread about Jo Swinson’s voice not carrying enough authority, I found it interesting that Posie Parker’s voice is the one that was “heard” when she and Harrop were speaking over one another. And not because it was shrill or over-excited.

As for OUP and definitions, let’s keep history intact. By all means add to it when new historical facts are uncovered, but let’s not eliminate derogatory words, let’s let them stand, with full social and historical context based on current ideology. If nothing else, this retaining of derogatory definitions, when identified as such, will serve to educate others.

Because the OED is the definitive work these definitions end up everywhere.

I’ve never forgiven the OED for changing the definition of “literally” to also mean “figuratively,” as they weren’t proscriptive enough. The shame. The disappointment.

I KNEW they'd come for the dictionaries. Anything to stop reference to the dictionary definition of women.

The Fawcett Society. The shame of it.

I really don't think they will. The OED know exactly what makes a definition.

Don't be so sure.

Censoring dictionaries, that's totally normal for oppressed people to want right?

That YouTube clip never gets old.

I categorically oppose removing derogatory definitions of women, even if it defines women as property of men. Especially so.

This language and system of patriarchy needs to be on the record, for all past, present, and future generations.

How does removing access to information empower women and girls? If men or boys call a girl by a slur that she doesn't understand, she needs to be able to look it up so that next time she hears it, she knows that the men and boys using it don't think of her as a full human and are not to be trusted.

If these precious fools are triggered by OED, they'd better not go near Urban Dictionary, or indeed most of the internet.

Also, the whole thing is a smokescreen for that last item: redefining women to include some males.

Agree bd67th. I wouldn't actually sign the petition even if transwomen hadn't been suggested as a "type of woman" because the etymology and history of language is important. See 1984 for further details...

Yes, it the thing is that, as far as I can see, nothing about that petition is accurate and yet loads of people have signed it. The OP thought it was fine apart from the last bit but in fact none of it is true.

Obfuscating shitgibbons.

Am I looking at the wrong page? The definition I saw defined a woman as adult human female. The derogatory example uses were marked as such.

I agree with PPs. We don't want to start nagging dictionaries to show language as it should be- that way lies Genderism. They should be free to describe language as it is used, warts and all.

Watching the clip again, I hadn't noticed the first time that Harrop called the posters Posie had put up "that campaign made flesh as it were".

It's paper, love. Nobody is making anything out of flesh and putting it on walls, do calm down.

That’s a clever petition lobbying to insert transwoman into the dictionary definition of woman while dressing it up as equality.

Good catch OP.

Yes, I thought the "made flesh" was almost biblical. "and God said man can be woman - if he says so"

On the 8th day the Lord made GRCs?