In a sign of the insane times we live in, Cambridge Dictionary has revised its definitions of “man” and “woman” to appease the angry crowds to whom biological realities are a dangerous myth.
Under “man,” the definition now includes “an adult who lives and identifies as a male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.” A similar add-on is given to the word “female.”
Conservative commentator commented on the change: “Remember, if you can control the language, you can control the population,” while Daily Caller writer Mary Rooke called the dictionary editors “traitors to the truth.”
“Cambridge Dictionary is only the latest,” Rooke wrote. “If we don’t stop them from erasing women our civilization is [not going to make it it],” she said.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
This super-sensitivity towards people who are unhappy with the gender they were born with is NOT being done to help people. The goal of all this nonsense is to DESTROY America, and DESTROY Western Civilization, and DESTROY Torah all those who believe in it.
Changing language = control is a dangerous theory. It’s deconstructivism, which is pushed by the postmodernists and Nietzche philosophies. Only in English can you get away with this, since nouns aren’t masculine/feminine. Almost every other European and Germanic language builds it, and there’s no way out. Somehow English drew the short straw.
Not discrediting it entirely, for sure when you start asking about “pronouns”, the building block of society (future generations) are in danger.
Use OED.
Webster’s still has it right.
George Orwell already wrote about this in Politics and the English Language, language corrupts thought and thought corrupts language.
Maybe this will erase gays too, if 2 men are married, then one can Identify as a woman so it’s a straight married now.
Or if a married woman changes her pronouns, then it turns out De- Facto that the husband was gay all along.The possibilities are endless
why dont we just define it as person,place or thing.
They also redefined “recession”.
The insanity is out of control and jackk, gadolhadorah, are conspicuously absent from the discussion, because they’re too busy decrying Elon Musk, twitter, and Trump.
All the while, American morals and values continue to rot, along with the freedom of speech that protects it.
I am not chopping the issue here. That is one of the ways people use those words, and so that is one of the meanings of those words. You don’t have to like it – I definitely don’t – but the issue has nothing to do with the dictionary.
A dictionary has to reflect the language as it is actually being used. If their research shows that English-speakers are now using the word in this way, then their dictionary has to reflect that change. They don’t get to omit a valid usage just because they don’t like it. That would be like omitting the usage of “jew” as a verb, just because it’s offensive; if you’re a respectable dictionary you don’t do that.