Merriam Webster Dictionary re-defines 'transwoman'

submitted by OrangeFirefly from self.GenderCritical

This online dictionary has redefined 'transwoman' to 'a woman who was identified male at birth'.

Madness, as it still defines 'woman' as 'female'. I have contacted them to say that I am confused by the dictionary's definition. How can a male be identified as female (except in cases of mistakes or infants with DSD, neither of which is anything to do with 'trans'?)

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Finnegan7921 44 insightful - 2 fun44 insightful - 1 fun45 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

How did they amass so much power in such a short period of time ? You literally cannot challenge them in public unless you have lifelong financial security b/c they will ruin you for speaking biological fact. I remember when gay guys and lesbians just wanted to live openly; it wasn't about some power grab by which they would seek to threaten anyone who didn't agree with their orientation and lifestyle.

[–]oyasuminasai50 22 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What frustrates me more than anything is how coy they act. They claim they're not erasing sex, but dictionaries are literally be revised to skirt the entire concept of sex. At an alarming pace, we're approaching a world where we will not have any language to refer to sex and sexed bodies. The only thing that will matter is "gender."

And what's more, if TRAs have their way, being trans will just be as easy as telling someone you're trans. So abusive men (NOT legitimate trans women but MEN) will be able to finesse their way into women's spaces as easy as blinking an eye. Women's restrooms, women's locker rooms, women's shelters, you name it.

You won't be able to deny that someone is trans. You won't be able to comment that someone doesn't "look" a certain gender. All of this is increasingly verboten. And abusive cis men can and will take advantage.

[–][deleted] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Because the movement is funded by rich, white men. Money = power

[–]Finnegan7921 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't think that's just what it is though. They have gotten the media and corporate America (which usually leans conservative), to pander to a minuscule fraction of the population with an almost religious fervor. The media I can almost understand b/c it is left leaning, but to just dismiss any and all concern that this isn't the best way forward is a bit much, and the way corporate America just surrenders is insane. The TRA's don't have more spending power than the people they're pissing off, the Gilette ads proved that as they posted huge losses in the wake of their "all white men are shit" and "trans guy shaving" ads.

[–]Iridescence 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To some extent, I think that the idea of being 'trans' fits in with the conservative notions of gender/gender roles. I suppose it's easier to accept that a too-feminine man is actually a woman rather than accept that sex does not determine one's interests and personality.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Genderism, which includes transgenderism, is a conservative ideology though. It posits that there's a particular way you're supposed to behave and dress based on your sex. Or that your sex should be based on the way you behave and dress. Making men and women into social roles is like one of the foundational tenets of conservatism. I sort of get it because we're a visually-oriented species (yes, that includes women) with a poor sense of smell and, honestly, over the entire species there's NOT a lot of dimorphism between the sexes other than at the genitalia and, well, we wear clothes! There's wide variation in heights, body hair, build, etc. otherwise. So maybe we developed some rules about appearance and behavior to make differentiating between men and women easier. But we took it to a pathological degree and now we use it to oppress. The point of feminism is to say, "Male and female are biological states, not prescriptions for every facet of living." As much as trans activists talk a great game about smashing the "gender binary" [sic], they only reinforce it by saying "of course this person's a woman, can't you see her makeup?" Give me a break.

Also, no one in power cares about trans men because duh, they know they're women.

[–]AngryRadish 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As individuals they dont have big spending power but to lobbyist groups (read:pharmaceutical) they're walking piggy banks. Life long patients reliant on hormones as they are on water. More than average surgeries, health complications due to hormones, it can all be capitalised on.

[–]weirdthorn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Male privilege gives them access to places where women are denied, those "old boys clubs" still exist. A lot of TIMs and TRAs are tech bros which gives them the ability to manipulate social media (see twitter).

[–]_UngodlyFruit_ 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think it's a combination of things. Transgender ideology goes hand in hand with transhumanism, which a lot of the globalist elites have vested interests in pursuing. The pharmaceutical and medical industries, drawn by the allure of potential lifelong customers, profit through the peddling of hormones, hormone blockers and surgery. Most importantly though, the imposition of trans ideology as "fact" normalizes societal gaslighting and doublethink amongst the population, making them easier to control and manipulate. They are prepping us for what's to come.

[–]Marthasmailrobot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. I'd add on that this agenda fits perfectly with the ruling class agenda of population control. I suspect that has something to do with it, too.

[–]BrendaFricker 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's a good article here about their tactics: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists

For example: "In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for... Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. ….Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise. In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue."

[–]fogellegof 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

This is so ridiculous and stupid. Could you send me the contact data so I can write them, too?

[–]OrangeFirefly[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/contact-us

[–]Complicated-Spirit 29 insightful - 2 fun29 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Email written!

“Your definition of “transwoman” is blatantly false, and based on information that is both scientifically and observationally inaccurate. The correct definition should be: “1. A biologically male person who identifies as female. 2. A biologically male person who has undergone sexual reassignment to present a typically female phenotype.” Sex is not “assigned at birth” arbitrarily. Your current definition is an insult to women, men, science, medicine, and fact.“

[–]milpathecat 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I just sent the same. Thank you for sharing.

[–]tomboyeurope 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did so too! Thanks for sharing!

[–]fuckingsealions 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Goddam what the fuck is happening when we have to send corrections to one of the oldest dictionaries?? What would happen if transmen tried to pull this shit?

[–]OrangeFirefly[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know! Merriam Webster is supposed to be a serious, respected dictionary!

[–]threefingersam 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it is fucking unreal. All these sneaky definition changes are so sinister and dystopian

[–]Pixie_Waifu 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I sent them an email. Thanks!

[–]Middx 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can also comment on the definition. Scroll down the page a bit.

[–]AngryRadish 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps we should suggest they do the same to man lest they dont believe in equality and that transmen are men, the lesser parroted phrase. Might get enough panties in a twist to put a spotlight on the stupidity of it all.

[–]filbs111 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. It used to be (i think) that dictionaries described the way in which words are used. Now it seems dictionaries are run by activists who change words to influence how people use words.

Is there a revision history for dictionaries? They also changed "racism" recently. Keep tabs on

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman

I don't mind so much when people add extra definitions to words. The really bad thing to look out for is removing the old ones. Words are pointers to concepts. Remove the words, you remove the ability for people to think and communicate about those concepts. Of course, this is what they want.

[–]filbs111 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Another thing you do by redefining words is causing people to misinterpret things others have already said. For example, someone makes a women's sports league. They write in the rules that only women can play. Someone redefines the word, and anyone that says that they're a woman can play, because it says so in the dictionary.

[–]Middx 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. That's the crux of the battle to prevent transwomen being called women.

[–]yishengqingwa666 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Orwellian. Of course we all know they are men, and can never be any kind of woman, ever. The changing of definitions is the beginning of some kind of fascism.

Sent them an email and shared this widely.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Merriam Webster is pretty "woke" by dictionary standards. Observe their behavior on Twitter sometime. I wish you the best of luck convincing them to take another look, but I don't think it's going to happen.

[–]OrangeFirefly[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting - I'm not on Twitter. I expected more from Merriam Webster. Oh well! I still think it's worth writing in and pointing out the logical inconsistency of their definition.

[–]Middx 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Back to Cambridge then. Please don't tell me they've gone woke too.

[–]NextNinjaTurtle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, boy, here we go. How much longer before they change the definition of "woman" too?

[–]Seaweed_Chili 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Curious if they also have redefined transman?

[–]OrangeFirefly[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, I think they have. The definition is just as circular and makes you ask 'but what is a man'?

That a dictionary can have such scant regard for definitions is incredible to me. We need precise definitions in order to enforce the law.

I suppose I focused on the definition for 'transwoman' in my original post because there seems to be more pressure to redefine 'woman' than 'man' (menstruator, birthing person, person with a cervix, etc.) Also I think more laws protect women as a class - allowing males into 'women's' sport has a more devastating impact on the sport as a whole than allowing females into men's sport.

Still, the creeping Orwellian nature of these changes is affecting language overall.