5 ms·

Ironic choice, coming from a dictionary that regularly redefines words in service of political aims.

by endgame 4y ago

becquerel 4y ago
Horrifying, that language may evolve and change as time progresses
- concordDance 4y ago
  Some evolution is natural (e.g. a majority using it in X way) and some is the result of political fights.
  - rtpg 4y ago
    Do you believe that the "original" definitions are not also the result of political fights?
    - concordDance 4y ago
      For a much smaller number of words there have been political fights, yes. But the age of the dictionary, large scale political organization and long distance communication are relatively new compared to the age of most words in a language.
- ClassyJacket 4y ago
  - becquerel 4y ago
    I think politics is natural and organic.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Do you understand that words can have different, multiple and even conflicting definitions and a dictionary merely represents how words are used? For reference, Miriam-Webster's defines woman as such[1]: Your opposition isn't to the definition of "woman" but the definition of "female": adjective 1. a (1): of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs (..) b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male noun 1. a: a female person : a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs But these are clearly two different meanings of the word "female": one based on reproduction and another based on gender identity. So there is no contradiction in saying that a "woman" can be a person with a female gender identity who does not meet the reproductive definition of "female". Note that it also defines gender identity: noun a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female Additionally it helpfully defines gender itself: noun (..) 2. a: SEX sense 1a b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex c: GENDER IDENTITY For completion's sake here's the definition of sex it references: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures So "gender" can refer to reproductive characteristics, gender identity or "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex". Note that this says "typically associated with" not "inherent in" as these attributes are all mutable and vary. It also provides a helpful usage guide for the differences between "gender" and "sex" because the distinction can be confusing if you never had to think about it much. In other words, it's not actually "redefined the word 'woman' to include males", it has merely added nuances that better reflect how the word is used in practice. Note that the definition of "sex" is also handwaving a lot of the complexity (e.g. by saying "typically" a lot) because in practice it's better described by this humongous chart: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-... Note that a lot of the stuff in the bucket of "intersex conditions" can be easy to miss when sex is assessed at birth and what the person looks like as an adult is determined by a number of hormone washes starting before birth and only ending after puberty. You can say "oh but these are exceptions" but 1) so are trans people and 2) exceptions need to be considered if you care about a definition being correct. It's also interesting that you seem to focus on the existence of trans women, not trans men. Male puberty (i.e. testosterone) is much harder to "undo" than the opposite. You have the choice between the absurdity of calling someone like Shawn Stinson[5] "a female" and insisting that he must use the women's restroom or acknowledging that if you didn't know he is trans, for all intents and purposes outside intimacy he is obviously a man. [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female [3]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender%20identity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender%20identity [4]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender [5]: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y3cdHPl_hdw/VZTTItWC6yI/AAAAAAAA0KU/kE1qky7MNDQ/s1600/shawn3.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y3cdHPl_hdw/VZTTItWC6yI/AAAAAAAA0K...
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Ship of Theseus: for whatever definition of man, how much of a man's body needs to be changed for them to become a woman?
rsynnott 4y ago
Dictionaries do not redefine words; they describe how words are used (at least in English; there are a couple of languages where someone seriously attempts top-down control, but English isn’t one of them).
- theodric 4y ago
  Bakers do not bake bread, they merely construct a gel from precursor ingredients. The oven bakes the bread.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description Dictionaries do the latter. No need to come up with snarky analogies.
    - theodric 4y ago
      Thanks for the Wikipedia links. I have a degree that included a great amount of study of (socio-)linguistics and am well acquainted with the distinction. Describing something in such a way that it furthers an agenda is not objective, nor is it good sociolinguistics, but that's what the dictionary in question has been accused of doing.
      - hnbad 4y ago
        Maybe you should revisit your linguistics course notes then. The purpose of a dictionary is to represent language use. In fact, the definition of "woman" is largely unchanged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33785834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33785834 If your agenda tracks with how language use changes in wide swaths of the population, sure, a dictionary "furthers the agenda" but it does so by accurately reflecting language use, not what you want language use to be. I could argue that the second definition of "Darwinism"[1] furthers an agenda, but that's inane. This is how the word is used and it's the concept I take offense with, not the word itself. The dictionary just represents the reality of that being how the word is used. It sounds like you oppose the notion that "gender" or "gender identity" is, to put it simply, a thing. And you ascribe "an agenda" to those who agree that it is a thing while implying that not acknowledging that many people explicitly or implicitly (i.e. by behaving as if it is a thing without outright saying so, e.g. by respecting preferred pronouns or continuing to refer to someone as a woman or man after finding out they're trans and thus likely don't fit the reproductive definition of those words) agree that it is a thing is absent of an agenda. Actually I'm sure that's not what you're trying to argue because that is clearly ridiculous. Since you explicitly reference an "agenda", I would like you to spell out to me what you think that agenda is and whose it is. Because if you simply meant "bias", it should be obvious that an unbiased dictionary is impossible because it by definition has to represent social biases as there is no objective source of truth when it comes to descriptive linguistics. [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Darwinism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Darwinism

Ironic choice, coming from a dictionary that regularly redefines words in service of political aims.

becquerel 4y ago

Horrifying, that language may evolve and change as time progresses

concordDance 4y ago
Some evolution is natural (e.g. a majority using it in X way) and some is the result of political fights.
- rtpg 4y ago
  Do you believe that the "original" definitions are not also the result of political fights?
  - concordDance 4y ago
    For a much smaller number of words there have been political fights, yes. But the age of the dictionary, large scale political organization and long distance communication are relatively new compared to the age of most words in a language.
ClassyJacket 4y ago
- becquerel 4y ago
  I think politics is natural and organic.
- hnbad 4y ago
  Do you understand that words can have different, multiple and even conflicting definitions and a dictionary merely represents how words are used? For reference, Miriam-Webster's defines woman as such[1]: Your opposition isn't to the definition of "woman" but the definition of "female": adjective 1. a (1): of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs (..) b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male noun 1. a: a female person : a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs But these are clearly two different meanings of the word "female": one based on reproduction and another based on gender identity. So there is no contradiction in saying that a "woman" can be a person with a female gender identity who does not meet the reproductive definition of "female". Note that it also defines gender identity: noun a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female Additionally it helpfully defines gender itself: noun (..) 2. a: SEX sense 1a b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex c: GENDER IDENTITY For completion's sake here's the definition of sex it references: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures So "gender" can refer to reproductive characteristics, gender identity or "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex". Note that this says "typically associated with" not "inherent in" as these attributes are all mutable and vary. It also provides a helpful usage guide for the differences between "gender" and "sex" because the distinction can be confusing if you never had to think about it much. In other words, it's not actually "redefined the word 'woman' to include males", it has merely added nuances that better reflect how the word is used in practice. Note that the definition of "sex" is also handwaving a lot of the complexity (e.g. by saying "typically" a lot) because in practice it's better described by this humongous chart: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-... Note that a lot of the stuff in the bucket of "intersex conditions" can be easy to miss when sex is assessed at birth and what the person looks like as an adult is determined by a number of hormone washes starting before birth and only ending after puberty. You can say "oh but these are exceptions" but 1) so are trans people and 2) exceptions need to be considered if you care about a definition being correct. It's also interesting that you seem to focus on the existence of trans women, not trans men. Male puberty (i.e. testosterone) is much harder to "undo" than the opposite. You have the choice between the absurdity of calling someone like Shawn Stinson[5] "a female" and insisting that he must use the women's restroom or acknowledging that if you didn't know he is trans, for all intents and purposes outside intimacy he is obviously a man. [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female [3]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender%20identity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender%20identity [4]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender [5]: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y3cdHPl_hdw/VZTTItWC6yI/AAAAAAAA0KU/kE1qky7MNDQ/s1600/shawn3.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y3cdHPl_hdw/VZTTItWC6yI/AAAAAAAA0K...
- ben_w 4y ago
  Ship of Theseus: for whatever definition of man, how much of a man's body needs to be changed for them to become a woman?

rsynnott 4y ago

Dictionaries do not redefine words; they describe how words are used (at least in English; there are a couple of languages where someone seriously attempts top-down control, but English isn’t one of them).

theodric 4y ago
Bakers do not bake bread, they merely construct a gel from precursor ingredients. The oven bakes the bread.
- hnbad 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description Dictionaries do the latter. No need to come up with snarky analogies.
  - theodric 4y ago
    Thanks for the Wikipedia links. I have a degree that included a great amount of study of (socio-)linguistics and am well acquainted with the distinction. Describing something in such a way that it furthers an agenda is not objective, nor is it good sociolinguistics, but that's what the dictionary in question has been accused of doing.
    - hnbad 4y ago
      Maybe you should revisit your linguistics course notes then. The purpose of a dictionary is to represent language use. In fact, the definition of "woman" is largely unchanged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33785834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33785834 If your agenda tracks with how language use changes in wide swaths of the population, sure, a dictionary "furthers the agenda" but it does so by accurately reflecting language use, not what you want language use to be. I could argue that the second definition of "Darwinism"[1] furthers an agenda, but that's inane. This is how the word is used and it's the concept I take offense with, not the word itself. The dictionary just represents the reality of that being how the word is used. It sounds like you oppose the notion that "gender" or "gender identity" is, to put it simply, a thing. And you ascribe "an agenda" to those who agree that it is a thing while implying that not acknowledging that many people explicitly or implicitly (i.e. by behaving as if it is a thing without outright saying so, e.g. by respecting preferred pronouns or continuing to refer to someone as a woman or man after finding out they're trans and thus likely don't fit the reproductive definition of those words) agree that it is a thing is absent of an agenda. Actually I'm sure that's not what you're trying to argue because that is clearly ridiculous. Since you explicitly reference an "agenda", I would like you to spell out to me what you think that agenda is and whose it is. Because if you simply meant "bias", it should be obvious that an unbiased dictionary is impossible because it by definition has to represent social biases as there is no objective source of truth when it comes to descriptive linguistics. [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Darwinism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Darwinism