Cambridge dictionary drops new definition of the word ‘woman’

[Coconutmeg]

It’s quite long to get in a t -shirt though.

Ok.

so now ‘most’ equals minority.

Do you see it yet??

I mean really. Does everyone see it clearly?

Under the cambridge definitions a trans man is still a woman because they are an adult human female but also a man because they live and identify "as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth" (does this mean once a trans man dies they cease being a man as they will no longer be living or identifying as such)

But then they define sex as "the physical state of being either male, female, or intersex" so sex is an either or except if you're trans in which case you're male and female

DadJoke
I don't like certain changes of usage (less"to mean fewer for example), but that doesn't mean the dictionary is "wrong."

‘Less’ and ‘fewer’ haven’t changed meaning or ‘less’ replaced ‘fewer’. It is just that many people don’t understand the grammar and the concept behind how these words are used because it isn’t taught. Many people speak using incorrect grammar, but that doesn’t mean it no longer exists.

Let and rent, are similarly not understood but haven’t changed meaning.

Meaning of intersex in English
having a body that is between male or female, or relating to this state: The clinic provides support to intersex patients.3 days ago*
dictionary.cambridge.org › i...
INTERSEX | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

More unscientific, unethical rubbish.

Plenty of people use the word “God” to mean ‘the creator’, he who created the earth and all life on it. Doesn’t mean the dictionary gets to posit that all life on earth as created by a deity.

I expect there are more religious people using the word ‘god’ to mean ‘the creator’, than there are who use the word ‘woman’ to mean a man who says he is a woman.
Both usages are religious though, so shouldn’t be defined in the dictionary as the definitions of those words.

I also don’t think it is true, that many people use the word woman to mean man, without somewhere in the same conversation/text making clear that they are doing so out of wokeness, and are in fact referring go a man who claims to be a woman.
Lexicography is inaccurate if it doesn’t take context into considerations.

So the second is something that, objectively and logically could be said to be belief in something that is not true or ** something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is not actually true

(You can find which word those phrases apply to in the Cambridge dictionary)

Peers ponder new definition of ‘woman’ given in Cambridge Dictionary

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fb798e10-7d98-11ed-bcd8-855e06175970?shareToken=d9068d8528a77915e39664175e6b8ebc

This is from the Times, linked above.

What if we need a word to apply specifically to adult human females? Must we seek something new? Once we have chosen, we hope the Cambridge Dictionary will swiftly add it to the lexicon.”

I was wondering about this too.

Radio 4 News at 1pm covered the topic. I was in the car so only caught it halfway through, but more sunlight on how ludicrous it is all getting.

It's just occurred to me that the one place I do see 'woman' being used in the definition 2 sense is in various newspaper reports. Reports on all those things that 'never happen'...

Maybe the second definition needs tweaking to accurately reflect this usage?

You just have to invent one and use it widely enough for lexicographers to notice. AFAB seems to be gaining traction.

I've a better idea. Leave the definition of woman alone and if people want a different word for identifying as a woman then they invent one instead of stealing ours?

That would certainly be the most honest approach, with no risk that rights, protections and resources set up to support the group of people originally named women are accidentally and unfortunately misappropriated by the group of people now called women, not through an honest and explicit decision to make them mixed sex, but simply because the language changed.

Because surely no one would deliberately choose to take advantage of that linguistic oddity to claim entitlement to things that were never intended for them?

Words don’t work that way. Someone (not me) suggested GC people invent a new word, I suggested one. You can’t stop other people using words to mean what they want them to mean, and it’s good to see recognising this.

Obviously AFAB(1) is totally meaningless factually given that sex is set at conception and in well over 99% of cases accurately observed at birth.

However, words are just sounds outside the meanings we give them, so if this particular sound, regardless of its origin, will allow us to maintain female-only rights, spaces, protections and opportunities, maintain a female political presence and voice, and speak of the common experiences of being female without constant demand that we include males who (offensively(2)) believe they have a mental kinship with female bodied people, I'm all for it.

Cue apropriation of AFAB by male-bodied people, incoming in 5...4...3...2...1....

(1) We can always backronym it to Actually Female At Birth

(2) Offensive because it is not possible to hold this belief unless you also believe that (a) there is a mental sameness between women, and (b), you, despite observing them only from the outside, have nevertheless accurately perceived it.

You just have to invent one and use it widely enough for lexicographers to notice. AFAB seems to be gaining traction.

Among people who accept the ludicrous 'assigned at birth' thing. Definitely not among the public at large.

Women are keeping women. Anything else leads to chaos and deceit.

It would be much more straightforward and honest for "adults who identify as female but were male at birth (and still are, obv)" to invent a new one. Transwoman seems to be gaining traction.

You can’t stop other people using words to mean what they want them to mean

We can and will resist this colonisation, this theft.

@DadJoke

You can’t stop other people using words to mean what they want them to mean

I don't know your real name (and have no desire to) but for the sake of argument let's say you are J Doe, DOB 1965, home address 27 The Pines, Pretendville.

Now I'm not you, and that's not where I live, but if you can't stop other people using words to mean what they want them to mean, does that make it fine if I use those same words "J Doe, DOB 1965, home address 27 The Pines, Pretendville" to mean myself and the place I do live?.

And given "you can't stop" me using your words, does that also mean I have the right to live in your house, access your bank accounts, speak as if I am you?

This was always going to be the end game wasn’t it?

If women use the dictionary definition of adult human female to defend female single sex spaces (even used as the title of a film), then this definition must be changed. The use of the pre-existing accurate definition to defend the word ‘woman’ was the red flag to these particularly raging bulls. That raging angry need to control the narrative and force compliance. So much anger and so much misogyny.

I don’t buy the ‘it’s modern lexicon’ rationale. Seems much more likely that someone with this specific agenda got themselves hired at Cambridge press to force through this change. Just as there are examples of deliberate infiltration as moderators / gate keepers in social media to advance agendas and block cg undesirables, it seems logical that there’s been infiltration to become a moderator at Cambridge University Press.

I don’t buy the ‘it’s modern lexicon’ rationale. Seems much more likely that someone with this specific agenda got themselves hired at Cambridge press to force through this change. Just as there are examples of deliberate infiltration as moderators / gate keepers in social media to advance agendas and block cg undesirables, it seems logical that there’s been infiltration to become a moderator at Cambridge University Press.

I think it would be interesting to know their background and credentials for the job.

I'd like to know their sources, and how they discern that 'woman' is being used in their meaning 2, other than in conjunction with the negating qualifier 'trans'.

Thought I heard something. Will try to catch up.

What I did hear someone saying (statement?) was that "non English speakers need to know that this term can refer to transwomen too."

So I assume man will be changing soon too?

@WarriorN I heard theRadio 4 piece too. The Dictionary statement also referred to 'learners of English' which can mean children. As in, get in there when they're young to sow the seeds of confusion and blur the boundaries.

It's a horrific smashing of safeguarding. Blurring basic boundaries. Idiots

What I did hear someone saying (statement?) was that "non English speakers need to know that this term can refer to transwomen too.

Unfortunately, because of the way the newspaper reports I alluded to upthread are written, and various stats are being distorted, people do need to to know that the word woman is being (mis)used in this way.