I understand that in a general sense, but it doesn’t make sense to call literally every anti-trans person a ‘TERF’ when we already have a name for what that is.
Why not? English is full of synonyms. It doesn’t matter whether you think it “makes sense”. Why waste the effort attacking word choice when you knew exactly what they were trying to communicate?
Linguistic prescriptivism is nonsense, you personally not liking how a word is used does not make that usage incorrect.
Except that the word TERF is an acronym that literally includes the word “feminist”. Typically TERFs are women who specifically exclude trans women from women focused organizations and activities. It is a specific thing that does NOT adequately represent what Dawkins is. It is not Linguistic prescriptivism to understand what words mean, even if you are too stupid to understand it.
What you’re describing there is an etymological fallacy, a surprisingly literal one at that. By that logic the word “literal” should only refer to written text since it originated from the Latin word for letter, as in alphabet characters. Words’ meanings are defined by how they’re used, you’re complaining about how the word is being used, and you claim anyone using it doesn’t understand the meaning of the word. That is prescriptivism.
I understand that in a general sense, but it doesn’t make sense to call literally every anti-trans person a ‘TERF’ when we already have a name for what that is.
Why not? English is full of synonyms. It doesn’t matter whether you think it “makes sense”. Why waste the effort attacking word choice when you knew exactly what they were trying to communicate?
Linguistic prescriptivism is nonsense, you personally not liking how a word is used does not make that usage incorrect.
Except that the word TERF is an acronym that literally includes the word “feminist”. Typically TERFs are women who specifically exclude trans women from women focused organizations and activities. It is a specific thing that does NOT adequately represent what Dawkins is. It is not Linguistic prescriptivism to understand what words mean, even if you are too stupid to understand it.
What you’re describing there is an etymological fallacy, a surprisingly literal one at that. By that logic the word “literal” should only refer to written text since it originated from the Latin word for letter, as in alphabet characters. Words’ meanings are defined by how they’re used, you’re complaining about how the word is being used, and you claim anyone using it doesn’t understand the meaning of the word. That is prescriptivism.
This might be the dumbest shit I have read today. Congratulations on that. Maybe just spend this energy not saying stupid shit in the first place?