11 ms·
From aardvark to woke: inside the Oxford English Dictionary
- Chris2048 4y ago> The team decided against labelling Terf “offensive”, instead explaining in a usage note that it might be considered so; it was felt that this “was a bit more nuanced than just slapping on ‘derogatory’ or ‘chiefly derogatory’”. Is this not just playing sides? AFAIK very few TERFs call themselves that, nor do they consider the description accurate.
- wikfwikf 4y agoYou used the term when saying 'very few TERFs call themselves..'. Did you intend to be offensive, or was it just the easiest way to describe a certain group of people?
- cuteboy19 4y agousually offensive, agreed
- Chris2048 4y agoI refer to the group to which the term is applied.
- wikfwikf 4y agoYes, this is how most words work.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y agoYou wrote: >Did you intend to be offensive, or was it just the easiest way to describe a certain group of people? Did you find what they wrote offensive? It isn't clear. If yes, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) was offensive? If you in particular didn't find what they wrote offensive but believe that others might find it offensive, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) do you believe that others would find offensive?
- tsimionescu 4y agoThe OP claimed that the word TERF is clearly offensive, citing as evidence that "very few TERFs call themselves that". The GP was pointing out that the OP's own use of the word "TERF" is counter-evidence to their original claim, unless OP was indeed meaning to bring offense. Essentially, it would be like saying "the n-word is obsiously offensive, most n-words don't call themsleves that". If you truly find the word offensive, you just don't use it to refer to the people it is meant to offend. The fact that OP didn't use another word to refer to this group is evidence that this is one of the best words we have for describing the group that it describes.
- Chris2048 4y ago> Essentially, it would be like saying except the n-word is considered so offensive, it's offensive in any context, hence why you said "n-word", which is not at all true for "TERF". > GP was pointing out that.. is this different from "claiming"? because I disagree with this point; burden is on you to demonstrate that this constitutes "counter evidence".
- Chris2048 4y agoNo it isn't, and it's specifically what you asked - the group that the term is applied to in 3rd party, as opposed to a self label, is the group I'm referring to.
- coffeeblack 4y agoThe term is originally intended to be offensive. To split the “good lesbians” from the “evil lesbians”. But I’m not surprised that people try to rewrite history on this one too.
- DoctorOW 4y agoI don't believe so, the term has often been used in self-description.
- coffeeblack 4y agoFor example?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cmeacham98 4y agoIt takes 30 seconds on Google to disprove this: > It was meant to be a deliberately technically neutral description of an activist grouping. We wanted a way to distinguish TERFs from other RadFems with whom we engaged who were trans*-positive/neutral Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF (which references https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/91781/Radical-InclusionRecounting-the-Trans-Inclusive?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/9...)
- tsimionescu 4y agoI don't understand how a term which almost perfectly describes the group it describes can be offensive to that group. What specifically is offensive about being called a "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist"? The idea that they are radical feminists? Or the idea that they are seeking to exclude trans women from female discourse (and often forcibly seeking to include trans men)? Now sure, if I used this term to refer to someone like Donald Trump, I would understand why he would be offended at being called a radical feminist, but the people who are seeking to label this "a slur" are exactly radical feminists like JK Rowling who happen to also hate trans identities. This reminds me of the billionaire who was claiming "billionaire" has become a slur since people use it with a negative connotation. If you're a billionaire and people happen to not like billionaires, they're not being offensive when they're calling you that. It doesn't even have the mocking grandiose tone of the "Warrior" in SJW used to describe people who are commenting online... Note: this is not the same as slurs like the infamous n-word, since those were designed as insults, often referring to a hated/perceived as inferior natural characteristic or a mocking comparison. They were not descriptive terms referring to beliefs of a group that the speaker disagreed with.
- stewx 4y agoThe irony of the "TERF" abbreviation (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) is that many (most?) of the people being labelled as such are not radical feminists to begin with.
- RajT88 4y agoThere's a bit of a chicken-and-egg going on there. If you're a feminist, but trans-exclusionary, you qualify for the "radical" part.
- Chris2048 4y ago> you qualify for the "radical" part. why? Do feminists already "exclude" cis-men?
- RajT88 4y agoThe more extreme ones do, yes. "Men can't be feminists" is a hotly debated talking point in the feminist community.
- joshuamorton 4y agoThis seems self-contradictory. It's not really debated at all except on the extreme fringe. Hard to call that "hotly".
- willcipriano 4y agoI'd argue that is traditional feminism. The feminists of the 60's and 70's wouldn't be on board for biological men in women's sports or spaces.
- RajT88 4y agoIndeed, the TERFiest feminists out there are observed to often be first wave feminists.
- connicpu 4y agoIronically the term was coined by TERFs, and many of them began to dislike the term after they realized others were using it derogatorily
- Chris2048 4y agoWas it? Here's a Guardian article author claiming to have coined it: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/im-credited-with-having-coined-the-acronym-terf-heres-how-it-happened https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/im-cre...
- zimpenfish 4y ago> Here's a Guardian article author claiming to have coined it: Specifically does not claim to have coined it, no?: "I have retrospectively been credited as the coiner of the acronym “Terf” (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). I suspect I’m merely the first person who wrote it on a website that still exists."
- Veen 4y agoThat often occurs. SJW and woke originated on the left before being co-opted by their opponents as insults. Naturally, many on the left now dislike those terms.
- tsimionescu 4y agoThey are disliked because they are cliche, but I haven't heard anyone on the notoriously censourious woke left calling them slurs, the way TERFs are trying to describe the quite neutral term.
- regularfry 4y agoThey're disliked because they've been overused to the point of losing any practical meaning, and it's transparent that they're only used for point-scoring and intra-tribal signalling. There's just nothing there to get that annoyed about, really. What I think the difference shows is that there is a fundamental part of the hierarchical/authoritarian mindset that objects to being labeled by someone in the out-group no matter the label, and that objecting to that labeling is itself an in-group marker.
- implements 4y ago“Terf” is very definitely used as a slur, at least in the UK - people labelled Terf in my experience usually describe themselves as “Gender Critical”.
- tsimionescu 4y agoA word that describes a group whose beliefs you oppose does not become a slur by virtue of you using it in opposition. If some people view the Tories or any association with them or their paltform in a very negative light, that doesn't mean that calling Theresa May "a tory" is using a slur about her. Just like calling France's Jean-Luc Melanchon "a socialist" is not a slur against him, even if spoken by someone who despises socialism. This remains true even if they prefer slightly different terms. At worst, calling someone by a label that doesn't correctly define them, and that you mean pejoratively, may be considered an insult, but not a slur - say, calling Barack Obama a socialist, or calling Tony Blair a tory.
- SilverBirch 4y agoWhilst this is an interesting article, I wouldn't say it's particularly HN
- hombre_fatal 4y agoI don’t think we need a self-appointed referee when we have an upvote system.
- Veen 4y agoThe upvote system is just hundreds of self-appointed referees.
- matheweis 4y agoI’ll explain my downvote; the tech community has been affected by challenges similar to those discussed in the article. Words that were considered standards for decades are within the last few years no longer acceptable. The changing definitions (or at least acceptability) of words, have, among other things, resulted in expensive refactors of code and documentation, and at times even bugs. As a particular examples, consider Whitelist/Blacklist being changed to Denylist/Allowlist, or Master/Slave to Primary/Secondary.
- fastball 4y agoDon't forget Master -> Main for git.
- leeoniya 4y agoi wonder if the recording industry also knee-jerk-renamed "master record" and "mastering", since the meaning is the same in both contexts. or if "masterclass" and "karate master" will have the same fate. :eyeroll: whitelist/blacklist has an unfortunate recent history, but black/white dualism preceeds it by a good margin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism
- 4y ago
- mistrial9 4y agocontroversy sells tickets -- news at 11
- Hayvok 4y agoPeople aren’t giving the article a full shake - you need to read past the first three paragraphs. The agonizing over woke terms is trying to show the rigor of the lexicographers & that they are trying their best to keep the work current with modern English speakers. The rest was really interesting - I wasn’t aware of the history of the OED, and this article gives a decent intro & dive into the process. Some selections I found interesting— > By the time the complete first edition was published in 1928, at a length of 16,000 pages, more than 70 years had passed… It was already out of date > “Our histories, our novels, our poems, our plays – they are all in this one book,” said Stanley Baldwin, the then prime minister, at a dinner to mark the completion of the first edition. > Having an open mind is essential for the role. “When you’re a lexicographer, if you hear a word that you’ve never heard before, you don’t go, ‘Ew, yuck, what’s that?’ You go, ‘Hmm, that’s interesting, why did they say it like that?’ You want to learn more. > The OED has never turned a profit: by 1911 the university press had spent £150,000 on it and made less than £60,000 in sales. Today’s revision programme is backed by £34m in funding
- kurupt213 4y agoDo they still sell dictionary updates? I bought my OED just before leaving for University. The single volume with a bunch of shrunken pages from the multi volume set on each page. I just found my hemispherical magnifying glass last week. I thought I had lost it in a move. But my dictionary is at least 25 years out of date
- solarmist 4y agoIt doesn't look like it anymore, but the print OED is still 2nd edition, which was published in 1989. The 3rd edition is entirely online. And they publish full books of additions every few years, but it doesn't look ike there have been any for a while. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/oxford-english-dictionary-additions-series-9780198612926?q=OED%20Additions%20Series&lang=en&cc=us https://global.oup.com/academic/product/oxford-english-dicti... FYI your single volume is probably the compact OED. The full OED is a 20 volume monster. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-english-dictionary-9780198611868?facet_narrowbyprice_facet=morethan200&lang=en&cc=us https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-english-d...
- kurupt213 4y agoIt is the compact OED. It has all the pages from the 20 volume set
- solarmist 4y agoOh really? I assumed it was a subset, but it's more like microfiche? That sounds nearly impossible to use.
- kurupt213 4y agoThat’s where the hemispherical magnifying glass comes in. It comes with the dictionary, which is a large tome. From the description on Amazon: Now comes the Compact Edition of OED II, which captures all the wealth of scholarship found in the original edition in just one volume. The Compact is not an abridgement, but a direct photoreduction of the entire 20-volume set, with nine pages of the original on every nine-by-twelve page of the Compact (a magnifying glass comes with it). As in the Second Edition, the Compact combines in one alphabetical sequence the sixteen volumes of the first OED and the four Supplements--plus an extra five thousand new words to bring this monumental dictionary completely up to date. It was over $400 when I bought it new in the late 90s
- clouddrover 4y agoThe OED says cromulent is now a cromulent word: https://www.lexico.com/definition/cromulent https://www.lexico.com/definition/cromulent But Merriam-Webster fails to agree: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cromulent https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cromulent