[Crimson Dynamo]

Cambridge Dictionary has updated its definition of “woman” to include anyone
who “identifies as female” regardless of their sex at birth.

The online dictionary recently added a supplementary definition of a “woman”
which includes transgender people.

It now states that as well as definitions including an “adult female human
being”, a woman can also be “an adult who lives and identifies as female
though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth”.

It gives the examples: “She was the first trans woman elected to a national
office” and “Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...female-update/

[Livia]

Shhhh.... don't tell them about the XY chromosomes...

[Crimson Dynamo]

pandering to a delusion continues amid the wokeists

[Beso]

They need to update their load of bollox definition.

[UserSince2005]

Glad this is now official. haters can shut up now and accept they are wrong

[Livia]

Yeah... that's not how it works.

[Niamh.]

Did they update the definitions of man as well?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Christmas Neeve

Did they update the definitions of man as well?

yes

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

yes

Proper assault on language. As far as I've heard the Oxford Dictionary is still sticking to proper definitions....so far anyway

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Christmas Neeve

Proper assault on language. As far as I've heard the Oxford Dictionary is still sticking to proper definitions....so far anyway

It seems spitefully targeted against (actual) feminists as well, like how Kellie-Jay uses the (Oxford?) Dictionary definition as a sort of tagline.

[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

Cambridge Dictionary has updated its definition of “woman” to include anyone
who “identifies as female” regardless of their sex at birth.

The online dictionary recently added a supplementary definition of a “woman”
which includes transgender people.

It now states that as well as definitions including an “adult female human
being”, a woman can also be “an adult who lives and identifies as female
though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth”.

It gives the examples: “She was the first trans woman elected to a national
office” and “Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...female-update/

Cambridge dictionary can shove it !

[user104658]

OK so a dictionary is void of emotion (of all kinds) and should be a neutral tool with plain definitions... word definitions and etymologies are actually not static and do change over time. In purely linguistic terms it's actually right that they include this supplementary definition because, like it or not, it has become common usage with a section of English-speakers... and that's all a dictionary is there to do; list what people might mean when they say a word. Key though is that it remains an additional definition and not "the" definition.

What I would change though, and what I think is a linguistic mis-step;

"an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth"

Again removing "feelings" from the equation (because a dictionary should be an emotionless linguistic tool) - it SHOULD read;

"an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have had a different sex at birth”

At the VERY least I would accept "may have been observed to have"

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

OK so a dictionary is void of emotion (of all kinds) and should be a neutral tool with plain definitions... word definitions and etymologies are actually not static and do change over time. In purely linguistic terms it's actually right that they include this supplementary definition because, like it or not, it has become common usage with a section of English-speakers... and that's all a dictionary is there to do; list what people might mean when they say a word. Key though is that it remains an additional definition and not "the" definition.

What I would change though, and what I think is a linguistic mis-step;

"an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth"

Again removing "feelings" from the equation (because a dictionary should be an emotionless linguistic tool) - it SHOULD read;

"an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have had a different sex at birth”

At the VERY least I would accept "may have been observed to have"

" it has become common usage with a section of English-speakers..."

what on Gods earth are you talking about?/

its not and never has been apart from 0.00001% of the UK population

and they are all under 25

GET A GRIP TS

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

" it has become common usage with a section of English-speakers..."

what on Gods earth are you talking about?/

its not and never has been apart from 0.00001% of the UK population

and they are all under 25

GET A GRIP TS

It doesn't matter, the purpose of a dictionary is to define how a word is or might be used. 0.00001% is obviously a massive exaggeration, I would imagine the figure is closer to 10 - 20% and it's also used heavily in media with that definition which inflates that relevance. The age of people using it doesn't matter at all either; it wouldn't matter if they were all under 10, just as it doesn't matter if a word is used exclusively by over-70's. Plenty of words in the dictionary falling out of usage and only used by the elderly, or that have different definitions across generations. We don't take them out of the dictionary because they're only used that way by a small number of people. If you read it in a sentence... that might be the intended definition, and so that definition needs to be in the dictionary to make it a fully functional linguistic tool.

It's honestly that simple.

I don't agree with the definition at all, as it happens. I didn't say that above because it doesn't matter.

If I went through the dictionary right now with a highlighter and marked off every word that has a supplementary definition that I don't agree with, that troubles me, or that I perhaps have never even heard it would be a pretty long list. It would be a long list if anyone did it, and all with different words. Such is language.

Not liking a definition doesn't mean people don't use the word that way... if people use the word that way, it becomes a definition.

Language is like the wind or the tides... it just *is*, it just *happens*, no one really controls it, nor ever has, nor should they try.

[user104658]

You can also, by the way, absolutely argue that it's a net negative for linguistic function that the word has had it's definition blurred, and you can argue that this supplementary definition arose through a disrespect for the original definition. Definitely a valid standpoint - but still doesn't change the fact that it's a correct supplementary dictionary definition.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

It doesn't matter, the purpose of a dictionary is to define how a word is or might be used. 0.00001% is obviously a massive exaggeration, I would imagine the figure is closer to 10 - 20% and it's also used heavily in media with that definition which inflates that relevance. The age of people using it doesn't matter at all either; it wouldn't matter if they were all under 10, just as it doesn't matter if a word is used exclusively by over-70's. Plenty of words in the dictionary falling out of usage and only used by the elderly, or that have different definitions across generations. We don't take them out of the dictionary because they're only used that way by a small number of people. If you read it in a sentence... that might be the intended definition, and so that definition needs to be in the dictionary to make it a fully functional linguistic tool.

It's honestly that simple.

I don't agree with the definition at all, as it happens. I didn't say that above because it doesn't matter.

If I went through the dictionary right now with a highlighter and marked off every word that has a supplementary definition that I don't agree with, that troubles me, or that I perhaps have never even heard it would be a pretty long list. It would be a long list if anyone did it, and all with different words. Such is language.

Not liking a definition doesn't mean people don't use the word that way... if people use the word that way, it becomes a definition.

Language is like the wind or the tides... it just *is*, it just *happens*, no one really controls it, nor ever has, nor should they try.

under 1%

at best

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

under 1%

at best

I find that highly unlikely, being conservative but realistic I might say 5% who actually personally believe the definition, far more who will willingly use it as a definition (again I'd say 15% - 20% and as you said, skewed for age, the proportion is higher in younger people).

And I'd say EASILY 80%+ who know it is used by that definition, even if they don't use it that way themselves, and even if they completely disagree with the definition. And to reiterate - high levels of media visibility, where it matters more.

THe simple question would be; how many people do you think have heard the slogan "trans women are women" and understand what the person saying it means - whether they AGREE with them or not.

That's your relevant percentage here. Not the percentage that agree with the sentiment and use the word themselves with that meaning.

Essentially you're arguing for a definition that you yourself know and understand in usage - disagree with, but know and understand - to not be in the dictionary. Not a logical stance.

This is why the "Adult Human Female" argument has always been on shaky grounds and inherently flawed. It rests on the premise that language is a solid, when it's ALWAYS been a fluid.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Again

heard of

under 1%

outside central london

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

Again

heard of

under 1%

outside central london

I'm certain that you know this isn't true, unless you genuinely believe that 99% of the English speaking world lives under a shell. There's not much point in discussing it if you're going to let your feelings on the topic over-rule anything sensible.

There might be some good and true reasons for it not to be added to the dictionary - "only 1% of people have even heard that definition" isn't one, it's just so obviously untrue.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

" it has become common usage with a section of English-speakers..."

what on Gods earth are you talking about?/

its not and never has been apart from 0.00001% of the UK population

and they are all under 25

GET A GRIP TS

Tbf words do change over time.

Like look at the word gay as an example.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

OK so a dictionary is void of emotion (of all kinds) and should be a neutral tool with plain definitions... word definitions and etymologies are actually not static and do change over time. In purely linguistic terms it's actually right that they include this supplementary definition because, like it or not, it has become common usage with a section of English-speakers... and that's all a dictionary is there to do; list what people might mean when they say a word. Key though is that it remains an additional definition and not "the" definition.

What I would change though, and what I think is a linguistic mis-step;

"an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth"

Again removing "feelings" from the equation (because a dictionary should be an emotionless linguistic tool) - it SHOULD read;

"an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have had a different sex at birth”

At the VERY least I would accept "may have been observed to have"

Removing all emotion from the matter, a transwoman isn't a woman in any meaningful way - they are a male who's taking steps (be they cosmstic, surgical, sartorial, or medical) to appear to be the sex they arent. But whatever they do or have done to themselves, the last two words of that previous sentence are the most important: they aren't.

Legitimising definitions of woman which include transwomen skate a bit too close to also legitimising self-ID - if a dictionary says a transwoman is a type of woman, why shouldn't their documents?

[bots]

new words get added to the dictionary all the time, meaning of words changes through common usage over time. Saying it only applies to a small proportion of people is irrelevant. If the words are used in discussion they get added to the dictionary

[GoldHeart]

I noticed even in period adverts they were doing this , has man been changed?.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Holiver_and_Ivy

Removing all emotion from the matter, a transwoman isn't a woman in any meaningful way - they are a male who's taking steps (be they cosmstic, surgical, sartorial, or medical) to appear to be the sex they arent. But whatever they do or have done to themselves, the last two words of that previous sentence are the most important: they aren't.

Legitimising definitions of woman which include transwomen skate a bit too close to also legitimising self-ID - if a dictionary says a transwoman is a type of woman, why shouldn't their documents?

I agree with everything you're saying, but I think you're placing the problem in the wrong place. People need to realise that the dictionary ONLY refers to common usage... its never been any other way, and isn't the same as a legal definition nor should it affect or inform any legal definition.

Going to the dictionary definition just isn't a good argument. It was never a good argument "against", and changing it doesn't make it a good argument "for". The dictionary is literally just a tool that says "this is how some people use this word"... it has no "opinion" on what's the right or wrong usage.

People will of course want to use it to legitimise their stance, that's inevitable really, but that's just them either not understanding what a dictionary definition is, or being disingenuous to bolster their argument. It should affect how we use a linguistic tool... Attempts to actively curate language development for one won't work, and if they did, would probably be a slippery slope into compelled speech as well (exactly what Peterson became famous for arguing against).

[user104658]

To clarify what I mean by "common usage" I don't mean the frequency or regularity that it's used, I think there was confusion there.

I mean used "in the common tongue" - unofficial, colloquial speech. So when I say "common" I'm basically saying "as opposed to legally official".