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.
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?