So Merriam-Webster has committed the cardinal sin of dictionary entries by using two opposites to define each other. Let me explain. If you define "impossible" as "not possible", that's fine if you use the entry for "possible" to explain what it means, but if you instead define it as "not impossible" you are no longer able to understand either concept if you didn't know either word before using the dictionary, and you've failed to do the one thing dictionaries are supposed to do. This kinda just shows how bunk PC/SJW/Queer Theory actually is; they've dumbed down what male/female identity is so much that you can only define either one as the reverse of the other, when for forever we just said the obvious. Males are sperm-producing, penis-having individuals and females are egg-producing, vagina-having individuals, and traits that are deemed masculine/feminine are ones that are more often than not seen in one sex over the other.
So Merriam-Webster has committed the cardinal sin of dictionary entries by using two opposites to define each other. Let me explain. If you define "impossible" as "not possible", that's fine if you use the entry for "possible" to explain what it means, but if you instead define it as "not impossible" you are no longer able to understand either concept if you didn't know either word before using the dictionary, and you've failed to do the one thing dictionaries are supposed to do. This kinda just shows how bunk PC/SJW/Queer Theory actually is; they've dumbed down what male/female identity is so much that you can only define either one as the reverse of the other, when for forever we just said the obvious. Males are sperm-producing, penis-having individuals and females are egg-producing, vagina-having individuals, and traits that are deemed masculine/feminine are ones that are more often than not seen in one sex over the other.
This exactly.