Serious PC thread

[tented]

Its usage might be wrong, is the point. That’s what a dictionary is there to clarify - what words actually mean. And the dictionary clearly says that it’s showing us “the meaning of the word woman.” This is a different thing that showing us its usage. A dictionary ought to be precise in defining a word, then clear as to how it’s being used, or misused. It’s misleading when it tells us that a “meaning of the word woman” includes men who identify as a woman…

Should a dictionary’s editors not have included a definition of “bad” meaning “good”?

 

[Kieran]

Should a dictionary’s editors not have included a definition of “bad” meaning “good”?

Look at the Cambridge dictionary definition of the word bad, and see how they define it. They have categories for different usages, without compromising its meaning. Look at their definition of the word dictionary. It says it’s “a book that contains a list of words in alphabetical order and explains their meaning.”

By the way, a dictionary is supposed to be where we can go to solve arguments, not to start them…

 

[tented]

Look at the Cambridge dictionary definition of the word bad, and see how they define it. They have categories for different usages, without compromising its meaning. Look at their definition of the word dictionary. It says it’s “a book that contains a list of words in alphabetical order and explains their meaning.”

By the way, a dictionary is supposed to be where we can go to solve arguments, not to start them…

Wait, I thought you had dismissed this dictionary because of its definitions of “woman”? But now it’s the arbiter of meaning?

I think we’re thinking of dictionaries in two different ways (See? Even dictionary is complicated to define): you’re sticking with an almost legalistic approach, whereas I’m thinking of it as a document of usage. For me the gold standard is the OED, which Wikipedia states “traces the historical development of the English language, providing a comprehensive resource to scholars and academic researchers, as well as describing usage in its many variations throughout the world.“ The word “meaning” isn’t even involved. It’s odd the Cambridge dictionary wouldn’t include “usage” considering that’s exactly what it does, amid defining the word dictionary.

Anyway, I recently heard the Offensive Tranny say “if that were true, I would have stayed a girl,” and describes himself as a “trans man”. Similar to Cambridge’s usage of “trans woman” within their definition of “woman”. (I can’t remember which video, and can’t find it quickly right now.) Was he wrong to say that? Because we also know he is someone who makes it clear there are only two genders, he understands the genetics behind this, etc. There’s a difference in usage (yes, that word) going on: one applicable to how he identifies now (post transition), and the other applicable to genetics/biology.

(BTW, I agree with Derrida: a dictionary is where all problems begin! Meaning is always elusive. But that’s another, much more complicated discussion, and we’ve hijacked this thread too much already, but feel free to have the final word …)

 

[Kieran]

Wait, I thought you had dismissed this dictionary because of its definitions of “woman”? But now it’s the arbiter of meaning?

I dismissed it as being unreliable - it’s using an innovative ideological “meaning” of the word woman.

If a dictionary describes old words with a new “meaning” that comes not from popular acclaim or science or reason, but bad and dangerous politics, then that dictionary is no longer reliable. It’s been hacked and is doing the work of activists.

I think we’re thinking of dictionaries in two different ways (See? Even dictionary is complicated to define): you’re sticking with an almost legalistic approach, whereas I’m thinking of it as a document of usage. For me the gold standard is the OED, which Wikipedia states “traces the historical development of the English language, providing a comprehensive resource to scholars and academic researchers, as well as describing usage in its many variations throughout the world.“ The word “meaning” isn’t even involved. It’s odd the Cambridge dictionary wouldn’t include “usage” considering that’s exactly what it does, amid defining the word dictionary.

A dictionary defines words, and includes examples of the words usage. But the examples of usage are merely to illustrate the meaning of the word. Giving an example of a words usage is pointless if the dictionary doesn’t also give the words meaning. Imagine there’s a word “lpowr” [noun] - an example of its usage can’t tell us what the word actually means. And yet, this is the main reason for checking it in the dictionary.

Anyway, I recently heard the Offensive Tranny say “if that were true, I would have stayed a girl,” and describes himself as a “trans man”. Similar to Cambridge’s usage of “trans woman” within their definition of “woman”. (I can’t remember which video, and can’t find it quickly right now.) Was he wrong to say that? Because we also know he is someone who makes it clear there are only two genders, he understands the genetics behind this, etc. There’s a difference in usage (yes, that word) going on: one applicable to how he identifies now (post transition), and the other applicable to genetics/biology.

I’ve heard the OT also admit that although she’s gone through all the medical and surgical procedures, she is not and never will be a man.

(BTW, I agree with Derrida: a dictionary is where all problems begin! Meaning is always elusive. But that’s another, much more complicated discussion, and we’ve hijacked this thread too much already, but feel free to have the final word …)

Lpwor..

 

[britbox]

But that’s just it: the word “woman” has multiple usages, therefore multiple entries. You might as well be saying the word “bad” only refers to something which isn’t good — that’s the meaning of bad. Yet we know it has been used to mean the complete opposite, therefore you’re going to find multiple entries under the same word, even if you say “this is wrong, because that’s not the meaning of the word” bad.

A dictionary is a mirror of a language’s usage. It’s not a legal document.

It depends what dictionary is being used to define terms in a court of law. Blacks Dictionary in the USA? I'm not sure which is used under Irish/EU jurisdiction... but changing the definition of the term "woman" will likely have far deeper ramifications than simply just being a mirror to common useage in language.

Even if that was the case, I'd guess the majority of the population in the USA wouldn't agree on the definition. A bigger majority in Western Civilization would dissent, and outside of the West, everyone else is laughing.

It's top down programming, being driven at an incredible speed, or as Klaus Schwab puts it "a tsunami of change".

 

[tented]

It depends what dictionary is being used to define terms in a court of law. Blacks Dictionary in the USA? I'm not sure which is used under Irish/EU jurisdiction... but changing the definition of the term "woman" will likely have far deeper ramifications than simply just being a mirror to common useage in language.

Even if that was the case, I'd guess the majority of the population in the USA wouldn't agree on the definition. A bigger majority in Western Civilization would dissent, and outside of the West, everyone else is laughing.

It's top down programming, being driven at an incredible speed, or as Klaus Schwab puts it "a tsunami of change".

I don’t know about other countries, but in the US it has been legal for a long time for people who transition to change their gender. John Doe (male) can become Jane Roe (female). This has been precedent for decades. (To be clear, this is for people who undergo sex changes, not some random person playing dress-up.) In this respect, a “woman” is someone born male and transitions to a female, just as the Cambridge dictionary uses the word.

 

[Federberg]

as I keep saying... this is fkd up...

 

[Kieran]

I don’t know about other countries, but in the US it has been legal for a long time for people who transition to change their gender. John Doe (male) can become Jane Roe (female). This has been precedent for decades. (To be clear, this is for people who undergo sex changes, not some random person playing dress-up.) In this respect, a “woman” is someone born male and transitions to a female, just as the Cambridge dictionary uses the word.

The Cambridge dictionary says that a woman is “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth,” no reference to surgeries or undergoing sex changes. But I don’t agree with that legal definition, a person who goes under the dagger to get their members dispatched to the dustbin still aren’t women. They wouldn’t need to get their boys removed if they were. This is why maybe using “transwoman” is required, with the understanding that everybody knows what it really means…

 

[tented]

The Cambridge dictionary says that a woman is “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth,” no reference to surgeries or undergoing sex changes. But I don’t agree with that legal definition, a person who goes under the dagger to get their members dispatched to the dustbin still aren’t women. They wouldn’t need to get their boys removed if they were. This is why maybe using “transwoman” is required, with the understanding that everybody knows what it really means…

One of their examples is “trans woman” so maybe eliminating the space would be better.

 

[mrzz]

whereas I’m thinking of it as a document of usage

We are 99% on the same page on this topic. Only thing I disagree is the Derrida line: obviously, but *very* obviously, problems don't start with dictionaries: problems stats with different individuals and groups giving different meanings to words.


Back to topic, zero problems with the dictionary documenting the specific meaning being discussed here. But I see an issue in the full entry that you posted (not a biiig one, but an issue still). The ordering in general reflects the usage -- the first entry is the one used most frequently, and so on (of course there is more to it, context specific uses, etc). And in absolutely *no way* that specific use is as common as its placing suggests -- even if you consider the debates about it themselves. There is a clear ideological scent in this -- I can picture the scene already, if that meaning was at the bottom of the list, people would say that the dictionary was being "transphobic".

 

[mrzz]

I’ll tell them my pronouns are “Biggus/Dickus”

You're not alone, brother!

 

[Kieran]

You're not alone, brother!

View attachment 7389

I didn’t like that goalkeeper. He was actively cheating during the shoot out, and then I saw this and thought, well done, son, you’re an idiot…

 

[mrzz]

I didn’t like that goalkeeper. He was actively cheating during the shoot out, and then I saw this and thought, well done, son, you’re an idiot…

So on this we are not in the same page. But this a discussion for another thread. Anyway, I could not let this pass!

 

[britbox]

The dictionary definition matters, because you can use it as an authority in a court of law (depending on the dictionary). When I say dictionary, I mean the legal dictionary used as an authority in court. (i.e. Blacks Dictionary in certain jurisdictions)

i.e. If you make a claim that a naturally born man who has transitioned, isn't a real woman, and they decide to sue you for it. You're in trouble.

Definitions have consequences. The dictionary definition of "Pandemic" was changed...thus it allowed governments to invoke "States of Emergency" where a lot of constitutional law could be set aside. Words matter.

 

[Federberg]

The dictionary definition matters, because you can use it as an authority in a court of law (depending on the dictionary). When I say dictionary, I mean the legal dictionary used as an authority in court. (i.e. Blacks Dictionary in certain jurisdictions)

i.e. If you make a claim that a naturally born man who has transitioned, isn't a real woman, and they decide to sue you for it. You're in trouble.

Definitions have consequences. The dictionary definition of "Pandemic" was changed...thus it allowed governments to invoke "States of Emergency" where a lot of constitutional law could be set aside. Words matter.

there's a Norwegian woman who is currently in court with a risk of incarceration because she said that trans-women can't be lesbians. This is scary shit folks. I don't understand how anyone would be ok with her going to jail. This is fascism..

 

[Federberg]

here it is...

Norwegian filmmaker faces prison for stating men cannot be lesbians

Gay Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon faces three years in prison for saying male-to-female transgender women can’t be lesbians

www.rt.com

 

[britbox]

there's a Norwegian woman who is currently in court with a risk of incarceration because she said that trans-women can't be lesbians. This is scary shit folks. I don't understand how anyone would be ok with her going to jail. This is fascism..

Yep, it's not National Facism (Nazi), rather International Facism (Iazi). Same stuff happening in every country, Fascinating to watch on one level, frightening on another. Stay cool, it wins the battle but loses the war. What is frightening is the number of people sleepwalking into it, waving their little cultish right v left tribal flags... when both wings belong to the same bird.

 

[Kieran]

here it is...

Norwegian filmmaker faces prison for stating men cannot be lesbians

Gay Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon faces three years in prison for saying male-to-female transgender women can’t be lesbians

www.rt.com

That’s terrifying, and points to the truth of the words written here recently by Britbox, that words matter. When dictionaries define words differently to the way millennia of history have known these words, we know why they’re doing it. It’s to influence the culture wars on these matters, not to neuturally present a common usage. The innovative Cambridge dictionary definition of the word woman that is only in common usage among activists. Therefore, the dictionary has been hacked.

Now this shit. We lived long enough to see a woman threatened with jail for defining what a woman is, based upon “hate speech laws.” There has never been a satisfactory reason given for there ever being hate speech laws, and the broad and vague scope of laws like this make them a recipe for disaster…

 

[tented]

We are 99% on the same page on this topic. Only thing I disagree is the Derrida line: obviously, but *very* obviously, problems don't start with dictionaries: problems stats with different individuals and groups giving different meanings to words.

I meant this as a metaphor (a reference to Derrida’s term différance without going into details about words and definitions differing and deferring) since the discussion began with the mention of a dictionary. But yes, obviously language begins with humans (oral and written).

Back to topic, zero problems with the dictionary documenting the specific meaning being discussed here. But I see an issue in the full entry that you posted (not a biiig one, but an issue still). The ordering in general reflects the usage -- the first entry is the one used most frequently, and so on (of course there is more to it, context specific uses, etc). And in absolutely *no way* that specific use is as common as its placing suggests -- even if you consider the debates about it themselves. There is a clear ideological scent in this -- I can picture the scene already, if that meaning was at the bottom of the list, people would say that the dictionary was being "transphobic".

I hadn’t considered the order of usage, but it’s an excellent point. I agree its placement shouldn’t be that high up on the list, therefore some ideological/political intervention was made. And I agree with your assessment that this was motivated (at least in part) by the concern of being labeled transphobic (a highly problematic word in itself).

 

[Kieran]