You know, when future historians are looking back on our period of history, and trying to analyse 21st century people’s mental state, I think our society’s struggle to define what a “woman” is will be very illuminating for them.
Hundreds of years from now, when society has regained its sanity, and people can look back on us dispassionately without fear of backlash, they will see a society that was not even able to coherently explain what fifty percent of the population is. They will see the ruins of a civilisation whose adults couldn’t answer questions that a child could answer with ease. They will see a people who were confused about fundamental facts of life, and who refused to accept biological realities which were obvious to every society since the dawn of human history.
And looking at this, the historians will no doubt conclude “These 21st century lads were all raving mad, and idiots to boot.” And you know what? They will be right.
And one group helping to accelerate the idiotic madness gripping our societies are english dictionaries like Cambridge, which recently changed its definition of the word “woman.”
While the original definition still remains – “an adult female human being” – they have added on another definition, no doubt with the goal of appeasing the radical gender lobby. And the new definition is as follows:
Now, to give Cambridge the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that they themselves are not endorsing this idea, and are simply changing the definition because the word has come to be used in this way by modern liberals. It might be less them saying “we believe this definition,” and more just cataloguing the fact that “hate it or love it, this word is now used in this way.”
Even allowing for that possibility, though, this definition is quite clearly ludicrous.
The word “female” is defined by Cambridge as “belonging or relating to the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs.”
So in other words, it refers to a biological state – being able to bear young with eggs and having two X chromosomes. That sort of thing. Your sex is a hard fact about your person – it isn’t an idea in your head, but a concrete observable reality.
So to say you “identify” as male or you “identify” is female is an absolutely absurd non-statement. That’s like a short person saying they “identify” as 7ft 2, or a bald man saying he “identifies” as having long hair. It means absolutely nothing.
As bad as this definition is though, it’s still not as bad as Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s recent definition of “female.”
According to Merriam-Webster, one of the definitions for female is, I kid you not:
But when you look up what is the definition of male, it says the opposite:
So in other words, it’s entirely circular.
Imagine if an alien was trying to explain a word to you in their own language, and they said “The word ‘Glurb’ means the opposite of ‘Zuz.’” And when you ask what does ‘Zuz” mean, they say “The opposite of ‘Glurb’.”
In other words, they’ve told you absolutely nothing. We are no closer to an actual definition of either word, and still have no idea what they’re talking about.
All of this is simply an attempt to explain the inexplicable, and defend the indefensible. The view espoused by the gender radicals is an inherently absurd position, and no amount of nerds in a room shuffling papers will ever come up with a convincing argument for why their goofy definitions are superior to the classically understood meaning of what a “woman” is.
At this point, any company that comes out with this stuff deserves to be ridiculed into oblivion and laughed out of the room.