Connect with us


Cambridge Dictionary succumbs to progressives, changes definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’



Screen Shot 2022 08 29 at 10.16.33 PM

The fetish progressive liberals display for redefining foundational human truths will not end well. The Cambridge Dictionary has succumbed to their fantasy, going so far as to redefining ‘man’ and ‘woman.’

The New York Post writes of the changes:

“Man” now includes the definition “an adult who lives and identifies as a male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”

In the same vein, the updated definition of “woman” reads “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”

In a New York Post op-ed by Mark Goldblatt titled

Dictionary redefining ‘man’ and ‘woman’ is what happens when you reject reality for one group’s fantasy.

The article details the confusion unleashed by the Cambridge Dictionary using Pete Buttigieg, current Secretary of Transportation of the United States government, as an illustrative example. “Consider the statement “Pete Buttigieg is a gay man.” You probably think you know what it means: Pete Buttigieg is an adult male human being who is sexually attracted to other adult male human beings. But,” the article continues, per the Cambridge Dictionary, the assertion may mean at least three other things.

The article goes through the new variations allowed under the revised definitions:

For example, the otherwise benign phrase could mean that Mr. Buttigieg is an adult male human being who is attracted to female human beings who identify as male. The phrase could also mean that Mr. Buttigieg is an adult female human being who identifies as male and is attracted to other adult male human beings. There is at least one other variation of meaning to add to the loss of clarity of meaning. The phrase could mean that Mr. Buttigieg is an adult female human being who identifies as male and is attracted to other female human beings who identify as male.

These conflicting interpretations of “gay man” exist because, as reported, the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of “man” now includes what the article describes as “the grammatically tortured, trans-sensitive addendum” which is “an adult who lives and identifies as a male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.” Its definition of “woman” has been likewise stretched.

This is what happens, the article reports, to language and logic when you reject what’s demonstrably true in favor of what a sympathetic group of people wishes were true. The article advances the questionable proposition “You start out with good intentions” and concludes one may not end up not being able to say clearly what you mean.

Of course, language evolves. For elaboration, not long ago, the sentence “Pete Buttigieg is a gay man” would mean Mayor Pete is a happy, fun-loving fellow. “Gay” acquired a “homosexual” sense relatively recently. But words don’t get blurred with their antonyms to render what’s false true.

The article asserts that “male” and female” have clear definitions: they’re sexual classifications. There are only two sexual classifications, and even in those vanishingly rare instances where observable anatomy isn’t determinative, a person’s genome will reveal his or her sex with 100% accuracy.

Dictionaries have become venues of warfare. “These points get contentious only if you argue that “man,” “woman,” “male” and “female” are fluid terms: arbitrary assignments and subjective realizations — rather than objective, empirical observations — “that can be overridden by untestable gender identities.” That’s why dictionaries are now battlegrounds. Men become women and women become men only by substituting gender identities for sexual classifications. The article concludes that the “demand to substitute freely is the whole of the transgender-recognition case.” When reality is extinguished, things will not end well, because the impulse to eliminate reality can be boundless.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling



Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading