
<p>Liberalism’s new obsession with redefining genders has already started finding its way into the books as one of the world’s most consulted dictionaries has changed the definition of ‘woman’ to include transgender people.</p>



<p>Last week, media reported on the change in the definition of ‘woman’ in the Cambridge Dictionary, which how defines ‘woman’ as “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth”. Unlike the long-held definition of “adult female human” this new definition of ‘woman’ includes men who decide to be called women or, in transgender terms, ‘trans-women.’</p>



<p><em>The Telegraph</em> reported that Cambridge changed the definition in October this year, but it went mostly unnoticed until now. It noted that the editorial decision at Cambridge was made after they studied the contemporary use of the word ‘woman” and concluded that an update to its meaning was needed for learners of the English language.</p>



<p>Liberals who know of the updated Cambridge definition are cheering the decision. Dr. Jane Hamlin of the Beaumont Society called it “good news” and congratulated the Cambridge Dictionary team for this new “clear, concise and correct” definition. On the other hand, real women and critics of gender-fluidity are frowning upon Cambridge’s update. British independent journalist Sophie Corcoran posted on Twitter that changing the definition of ‘woman’ is an attempt to erase women and reminded that a woman remains an adult human female.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Try and tell me they’re not trying to erase women.<br><br>Cambridge dictionary have changed the definition of a woman. This cannot be accepted. We will not be erased<br><br>Woman = adult human female. <br><br>Not someone who ‘identifies as female’ <a href="https://t.co/n0Ytn7jV72">pic.twitter.com/n0Ytn7jV72</a></p>&mdash; Sophie Corcoran (@sophielouisecc) <a href="https://twitter.com/sophielouisecc/status/1602726247267713024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2022</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div></figure>



<p>Journalist and political satirist Andrew Doyle critically analyzed the editorial move by Cambridge and a related change in Webster’s definition of “female’ some months ago, equating it with authoritarianism that seeks to put a “chokehold on our society.” He said, “We mustn’t let them get away with it.” ;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-bitchute wp-block-embed-bitchute"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<iframe class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" title="&#039;We MUSTN&#039;T let them get away with it!&#039; | Andrew Doyle on changing of definition for &#039;Woman&#039;" width="459" height="344" src="https://www.bitchute.com/embed/YaQ7JNfBSR4/?feature=oembed#?secret=8m6QrUGSJi" data-secret="8m6QrUGSJi" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</div></figure>



<p>Writing in <em>The Federalist</em>, David Harsanyi called Cambridge’s change in the definition of ‘woman’ an act of “altering the fundamental facts” and corruption of language in an Orwellian sense.</p>



<p><em>But how can we deny that ideas are corrupting language, and language is corrupting thought?</em></p>



<p>For now, most of the online dictionaries continue to define ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as they have defined them for ages. The question is whether it’s only a matter of time before the authoritarian abuse of language becomes the norm rather than the exception. ;  ;</p>

New Change in Definition of ‘Woman’ in Cambridge Dictionary
