Democrat Podcaster Jim Acosta Fears That Republican Scott Jennings Will Soon Have His...
Mark Cuban: Democrat Party Should Shell Out Millions to Hire Mamdani’s Socialist Social...
Deranged Clickbait Islamist Prays for Wrath of Allah, Gets Biblical Spanking Instead
Saturday Night Live Sketch Mocking Tourette's Gets a Community Note
WSJ: Trump Admin Using English Tests to Crack Down on CDLs for Asylum-Seekers
NYT’s Peter Baker Seems Upset Trump Didn't Rush Back to the Oval Office...
'Going to Be HILARIOUS'! Trump Announces a FIRST in His 2 Terms (Have...
Axios CEO: Debate If Death of Khamenei Was Worth 3 American Lives Will...
Loon Who Campaigned for Elizabeth Warren Says Every US Official Is a Legitimate...
Guy From Project Liberal Thinks He's Found the ‘Republican Benghazi’
Rashida Tlaib and Mehdi Hasan Keep Upping the Body Count of School Allegedly...
Marco Rubio Lays WASTE to Democrats Crying Because Trump 'Did Not Notify Congress'...
Rep. Jasmine Crockett: Don't Scapegoat Immigrants After Mass Shooting by Man from Senegal
HUME-ILIATED! Brit Hume Just Took Democrats and Their BIG IRAN GOTCHA Apart With...
Trump Just Obliterated The Iranian Regime (Operation Epic Fury)
Premium

Merriam-Webster has also tweaked their definition of 'girl' (and 'boy') in order to be a safe space for all the little trans kids out there

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.

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement