The bulb is dim
TransLucent has me blocked of course but I’m sampling its tweets anyway. Have a nice sample of the intellectual quality:
A peach, isn’t it? Murdo Fraser notes that many women find the neologism “cisgender” offensive and demeaning, and genius answers that it’s in the dictionary. Guess what!! Lots of offensive and demeaning words are in the dictionary! The fact that they’re in the dictionary doesn’t make them not offensive and demeaning. The dictionary isn’t a private exclusive club that rejects words that don’t wear the right clothes; that’s not the purpose or job of the dictionary. Also there is no “the dictionary”; there are lots of dictionaries. Which dictionary is this one? Also is it really a dictionary? Are you sure? It doesn’t sound like a dictionary. The quoted passage doesn’t even define the word it purports to be defining. A real dictionary wouldn’t use the passage in quotation marks as an illustration, not least because it does nothing to illustrate or clarify the meaning, but also because it uses trendy jargon instead of ordinary language, which isn’t the kind of thing real dictionaries do.
In short…Steph is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I imagine I could find bullshit in the dictionary; does that mean if I call these ideas bullshit, it is not demeaning and offensive?
I can also find murder in the dictionary, but that doesn’t change its status as a crime.
Assclown is in the dictionary too. Just sayin’
Dictionaries are descriptive. I note an article today in WaPo:
Cambridge Dictionary updates definition of ‘woman’ to include trans women.
That same dictionary contains a definition for “cisgender”. So does Merriam-Webster. So, apparently, does OED (I don’t have a subscription, but they list it in their “new words added” list, so I assume). It’s entirely possible that Steph pulled the definition from a reputable dictionary.
(Surprisingly, to me, the Funk and Wagnalls web site does not list an entry for “cisgender” or “transgender”.)
But, as stated, the fact that a word is in a dictionary doesn’t make the word acceptable and without offense. It isn’t the job of a dictionary to dictate what words should mean, only what they do mean when people use them.
Some dictionaries, maybe most, will say a word is derogatory or offensive in the definition. Cisgender could be updated to reflect that. I suppose it depends on who the editors are and if they have been indoctrinated or not.
There is a mistaken belief that dictionaries are some sort of stone tablets handed down from Mount Olympus. They believe dictionaries are prescriptive and “It’s in the dictionary” is used as a “gotcha”.
Spoiler alert – they’re not.
Dictionaries record the current usage of words. That is why when the usage of words changes over time so does the dictionary definition. A few examples spring to mind:
Gay – nothing more need be said.
Wench – once meant a child of either sex, eventually came to mean woman.
Spinster – a woman who spun year, later an unmarried woman.
Punk – a young male servant, current usage couldn’t be further from that.
Dictionaries also record neologisms and acronyms, but they do not originate them.
Sackbut @ 3 – I really don’t think it is entirely possible that the quoted definition is from a reputable dictionary. The examplar is too dumb, too goofy, too teenagery, too on trend. It may be just barely possible, but entirely possible, nuh uh.
I was surprised to learn that “gullible ” is not in the dictionary.
The definition appears to come from “Google’s English Dictionary”, used by Google Search, and which is provided by Oxford Languages, the makers of the OED and other dictionaries. I doubt the GED contains the fully annotated and cross-referenced material you require; it probably just provides the basic definition and little else. I just think that makes it an abridged but reputable dictionary; I can understand that you might see it differently. The OED does contain slang and regional words. Maybe someone with an OED subscription can provide the OED entry for “cisgender” for comparison.
Sackbut @8 seems to be correct as to source. According to Google Books, the first use of cisgender was 1983, although it didn’t become ‘common’ until the 1990’s. Certainly my copy of the OED from when I started at University in the early 1980’s lacks the word.
I was looking at a tweet from a lawyer critiquing a Trump lawsuit that quoted a dictionary definition. His view was that if you’re quoting a dictionary rather than legal authority, respected academic authority, or legislation, you’ve already lost the argument. Maybe that doesn’t apply here. Still, the use is widely disputed, so hardly a slam dunk argument.
This is getting very tangled. The OED is one thing, and Google’s English Dictionary, used by Google Search, and provided by Oxford Languages, the makers of the OED and other dictionaries, is another.
Anyway I’m not saying there’s no connection among any of them, I have no idea, I’m just saying it’s not a certainty that the OED is lurking somewhere behind that idiotic screenshot from TransLucent. Maybe it is, but that would be surprising. A cousin of a neighbor of a babysitter of the OED is not the OED.
I agree it’s tangled, and I agree that the GED is not the OED.
My only¹ point here is that I don’t think there’s much wrong with the definition or the source, but rather with the reliance on a dictionary definition, as was explained quite nicely in the OP and elaborated further in a few replies here. If the OED definition had been provided, it still would have been a poor argument to rely on the dictionary definition.
The word is offensive, even if the definition in a fine dictionary does not state so. The word has connotations and ambiguity that may not be reflected in even the most up-to-date and complete dictionary. The simple assertion that it’s acceptable to use a word merely because the word is in a dictionary is asinine.
¹ Well, almost; my other point was to alert you to the article about the change in the definition of “woman” in the Cambridge Dictionary.
And if the tweet is trying to say this to counter the argument that “cis-gender” was not a real thing, saying “It’s in the dictionary, hah!”, then I counter by saying “So is unicorn.”