0 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Do non-binary identities reenforce gender stereotypes?
Is it really unreasonable to advocate for how a word "ought" to be used? Even when an updated meaning would better serve humanity?
How are we to conciously improve our communication without ever insisting we deviate from established meanings?
...
I find your use of "for now" at the tail end of your message to be interesting. Do you expect speakers that have deviated from Oxford Dictionary's "woman" will revert?
Comment by pen_and_inkling at 14/01/2025 at 17:22 UTC*
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Not at all, though it is always fair be clear with your audience when you are imposing a prescriptive moral preference about how a word ought to be used rather than applying the most common meaning. It’s not a problem to say “I am using this word in a specific way for specific reasons.“
I say “for now” because language changes are complex and long-reaching. It’s hard to know for certain what is essentially the style preference of the day vs. what will remain an enduring mainstream usage.
The primary definition of “woman” has been observed and documented for a millennium, since prior to the standardization of Early Modern English. I’m happy to acknowledge all usages; I’m pragmatic about assuming that definitions promoted right now will inevitably overtake the conventional understanding of the word, which has been the most stable and enduring sense of “woman“ in English-language usage for many hundreds of years.
There is no need to “revert” or drop either meaning. People use competing and alternative definitions of words all the time. I just don’t know that people who would like their current definition to be the *primary* meaning in English will ultimately compel that change.