Yesterday, we told you about Merriam-Webster’s sneaky little amendment to their definition of “female.” Here it is again:

A number of people pointed out that if “female” means “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male,” Merriam-Webster’s definition of “male” would have to be a lot clearer than their definition of “female.” Well, guess what: it isn’t. It’s this:

So, a female is the opposite of a male, which is the opposite of a female, which is the opposite of a male, which is the opposite of a female … and by this point, you’re probably dizzy from going around in circles. We know we are.

But join us if you will on one more little trip. Let’s take a look at how Merriam-Webster defines “girl,” shall we?

What was wrong with “a young woman”? Why did they need to change it to “a person whose gender identity is female”?

And in case you’re wondering, yes, they did, in fact, do something similar for boy:

This is getting ridiculous. And stupid. And anti-scientific. And anti-language. And anti-sane.

When did words stop meaning things? Because we’d like to go back to the time before that. This timeline is just too much.

We wish. Boy (pun intended), do we wish this were all just a silly joke, instead of a sickening one.