Merriam-Webster just added "cisgender" and "genderqueer" to its dictionary - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11470416/merriam-webster-cisgender-genderqueer"]SOURCE[/URL] [QUOTE]ig news for LGBTQ folks: On Wednesday, Merriam-Webster [URL="https://twitter.com/MerriamWebster/status/722817225925791744"]announced[/URL] that it added the words "cisgender" and "genderqueer" to its unabridged dictionary.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The additions reflect how society is expanding its discussions over [URL="http://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8483561/transgender-gender-identity-expression"]gender identity, gender expression, and transgender issues[/URL]: As conversations about gender broaden, the vocabulary used in these conversations is set to change, too.[/QUOTE]

I don't see a problem with this. They classify as words. Any reason to be upset about this would be purely reactionary.

I thought queer was supposed to be derrogitory, now it's used as an identifier? Weird

[QUOTE=Sableye;50170043]I thought queer was supposed to be derrogitory, now it's used as an identifier? Weird[/QUOTE] It's been used as an identifier for a good long while, actually. The etymology of it is really neat.

Before anyone comes in to feel that they're offended or their conservative manhood is at stake for the term cisgender: It literally is the opposite of transgender. As in, one's biological sex is in order with their gender identity and there are no problems stemming from it. It comes from the Latin "cis", or "this side of". "Trans" is "the other side of". Cisalpine Gaul, Transalpine Gaul, etc. so on.

Makes sense to me. I'm surprised they weren't in there already. They're words people use, might as well write down their meaning in a dictionary.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50170043]I thought queer was supposed to be derrogitory, now it's used as an identifier? Weird[/QUOTE] It's a victory.

Cisgender I get, but isn't genderqueer just agender and bigender mixed into one word?

If people are using the words, I see no reason why they shouldn't they be added to the dictionary.

For anyone that isn't aware, Merriam-Webster is currently (despite it's revisionist roots) a descriptivist dictionary. What this means is, they do not try to act as an authority on what is or isn't an English word, but instead merely collect and define what is colloquially spoken. This is not Merriam-Webster saying that [I]cisgender[/I] and [I]genderqueer[/I] are now "legitimate" or "official" English words, but rather their observation that these terms are used frequently enough to justify inclusion into the dictionary. In short, don't misinterpret this as some form Political Activism, it's merely the observation of language. It does not represent support for or against gender reformation.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50170083]If people are using the words, I see no reason why they shouldn't they be added to the dictionary.[/QUOTE] anything popular enough that gets used in both everyday and academic rhetoric should be in the dictionary. "hashtag" wasn't a word until twitter came out using the "#" symbol as a search identifier, so there's that.

[QUOTE=spiritlol;50170136]For anyone that isn't aware, Merriam-Webster is currently (despite it's revisionist roots) a descriptivist dictionary. What this means is, they do not try to act as an authority on what is or isn't an English word, but instead merely collect and define what is colloquially spoken. This is not Merriam-Webster saying that [I]cisgender[/I] and [I]genderqueer[/I] are now "legitimate" or "official" English words, but rather their observation that these terms are used frequently enough to justify inclusion into the dictionary. In short, don't misinterpret this as some form Political Activism, it's merely the observation of language. It does not represent support for or against gender reformation.[/QUOTE] Even if Oxford does it it wouldn't be political activism lol Dictionaries have always been observationalist

[QUOTE=spiritlol;50170136] In short, don't misinterpret this as some form Political Activism, it's merely the observation of language. It does not represent support for or against gender reformation.[/QUOTE] I prefer "gender insurrection", it sounds a lot cooler.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;50170077]It's a victory.[/QUOTE] Considering the source, not really. They remain "relevant" by adding new pop culture words every year. Plus it's a descriptivist definition, not an objective one. cisgender makes sense, genderqueer is literally clickbait, there are already plenty of existing terminologies therefor and of.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50170060]Before anyone comes in to feel that they're offended or their conservative manhood is at stake for the term cisgender: It literally is the opposite of transgender. As in, one's biological sex is in order with their gender identity and there are no problems stemming from it. It comes from the Latin "cis", or "this side of". "Trans" is "the other side of". Cisalpine Gaul, Transalpine Gaul, etc. so on.[/QUOTE] B..b..but why not just call it normal instead of cis? [sp]kidding. It's literally the exact fucking same saying gay/straight. Except it's better, because it doesn't sound stupid unlike straight because it's literally the latin opposite of trans.[/sp]

I fail to see how this changes anything :V People seem to be making a big deal about it.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;50170180]Even if Oxford does it it wouldn't be political activism lol Dictionaries have always been observationalist[/QUOTE] To be fair, you can be an observer whilst [I]also[/I] being prescriptive, ie thinking that the way things [I]currently[/I] are is the superior way and should be retained forever. That was Johnson's original line of thought, I believe.

[QUOTE=Grandzeit;50170346]I fail to see how this changes anything :V People seem to be making a big deal about it.[/QUOTE] A lot of idiots who don't understand how English works like to declare "but THAT'S not a word, it's not in the dictionary". It's considered a victory (usually by people with similar ignorance to the language) because the people who use that defense can't use it anymore.

I've never heard the argument that those aren't words. They are used broadly enough to just simply be accepted. Anyone who argued against that was just bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting.

That and it's really just two actual and very common words pieced together. It should be common sense, really. It's no different from when the online Oxford Dictionary added "manspreading" - and see how much of a victory that has been.

Ok, literally asking for an utterly harmless request for more information but please enlighten me on the term 'genderqueer' because from what I have heard among my social circles is that it means you identify as the opposite gender to what you were born. If that is the case isn't it already covered under the term LGTB and thus the Q is somewhat superfluous? I honestly ask because I've never gotten a straight answer.

the way things are going they'll become archaicisms by the 2050s in fact the vast majority of these sorts of words barely make it into the core vocabulary so i don't see why people are getting upset by this. within a few decades they'll end up passing out of common usage again it's like how google or do'h or unfriend are also recent additions. these terms have specific meanings which relate to the society of the time and thus have marginal roles (there's like hundreds of thousands of words, most of which nobody uses) phrases like cisgender or genderqueer are certainly among those that won't really end up sticking either, and given how tiny a role those two words play in modern society they will end up passing out of common usage just as quickly as they appeared

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50170894]the way things are going they'll become archaicisms by the 2050s in fact the vast majority of these sorts of words barely make it into the core vocabulary so i don't see why people are getting upset by this. within a few decades they'll end up passing out of common usage again it's like how google or do'h or unfriend are also recent additions. these terms have specific meanings which relate to the society of the time and thus have marginal roles (there's like hundreds of thousands of words, most of which nobody uses) phrases like cisgender or genderqueer are certainly among those that won't really end up sticking either[/QUOTE] Why do you think so? I find it hard to believe identifying terms like these will have the same permanence in our vernacular as a Simpsons reference.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50170936]Why do you think so? I find it hard to believe identifying terms like these will have the same permanence in our vernacular as a Simpsons reference.[/QUOTE] mainly because they're both recent coinages which are used in a relatively small number of contexts and seem unlikely to break out of it's already the case that people (mainly some feminists and intersex people) are complaining that cisgender isn't a good term because it fails to account for X situation and so is misleading another twenty years if that logic prevails i could easily see it changing, or maybe people will drop it altogether its hard to say

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50170949]mainly because they're both recent coinages which are used in a relatively small number of contexts and seem unlikely to break out of it's already the case that people (mainly some feminists and intersex people) are complaining that cisgender isn't a good term because it fails to account for X situation and so is misleading another twenty years if that logic prevails i could easily see it changing, or maybe people will drop it altogether its hard to say[/QUOTE] I feel like they're mostly recent coinages because LGBTQ rights have greatly improved in the past few years. And of course they're going to have niche use, but I dont think that necessarily equates to them having a short lifespan in the common vernacular.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50171059]I feel like they're mostly recent coinages because LGBTQ rights have greatly improved in the past few years. And of course they're going to have niche use, but I dont think that necessarily equates to them having a short lifespan in the common vernacular.[/QUOTE] i think they will based on the fact that other existing lgbt terms seem to pass out of common usage pretty quickly again, others are already talking about its flaws (or rather shortcomings) and undoubtedly might change it again we're also assuming here that LGBT rights will remain or improve, where it's quite possible they could be eroded again before the century is out (which i see as likely)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50171080]i think they will based on the fact that other existing lgbt terms seem to pass out of common usage pretty quickly[/QUOTE] Examples? [QUOTE]again, others are already talking about its flaws (or rather shortcomings) and undoubtedly might change it again[/QUOTE] Fair enough I suppose. [QUOTE]we're also assuming here that LGBT rights will remain or improve, where it's quite possible they could be eroded again before the century is out (which i see as likely)[/QUOTE] I think this is interesting, why do you think that it's likely that they'll erode within the next 100 years? Because as an LGBT individual myself I find that a rather concerning sentiment.

[QUOTE=thisguy123;50170868]Ok, literally asking for an utterly harmless request for more information but please enlighten me on the term 'genderqueer' because from what I have heard among my social circles is that it means you identify as the opposite gender to what you were born. If that is the case isn't it already covered under the term LGTB and thus the Q is somewhat superfluous? I honestly ask because I've never gotten a straight answer.[/QUOTE] I believe it is not the "opposite gender" but instead a "different gender" it makes sense if you view gender as not a binary but instead a spectrum

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50171101]Examples?[/quote] tranny, hermaphrodite, transsexual, etc being ones that have recently fallen out of use right now i think because of the whole "nonbinary" gender thing it means that even stuff like "bisexual" might run into problems depending on how vague and specific these terms might increasingly become [quote]I think this is interesting, why do you think that it's likely that they'll erode within the next 100 years? Because as an LGBT individual myself I find that a rather concerning sentiment.[/QUOTE] mainly because about fifty years ago it was very much the case. today lgbt stuff is a major political issue, but in another half century or so i doubt it will be a major political issue anymore so people won't really fight for it when the rollbacks happen because there'll be more important things to worry about (particularly in countries without a strong tradition of LGBT rights)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50171179]tranny, hermaphrodite, transsexual, etc being ones that have recently fallen out of use right now i think because of the whole "nonbinary" gender thing it means that even stuff like "bisexual" might run into problems depending on how vague and specific these terms might increasingly become mainly because about fifty years ago it was very much the case. today lgbt stuff is a major political issue, but in another half century or so i doubt it will be a major political issue anymore so people won't really fight for it when the rollbacks happen because there'll be more important things to worry about (particularly in countries without a strong tradition of LGBT rights)[/QUOTE] Huh, never knew that tranny wasn't derogative at one point. And has transsexual really fallen out of use? I suppose "trans" has superceded it somewhat.