4 ms·

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. Descr

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

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