Well now I've been educated. But I probably learned something other than the intended lesson.

[BainsBane]

97. I should have realized

what this was about for you.

I consulted some Australian dictionaries, most of which do not include the term at all. I did find this definition in the
Macquarie Dictionary, which the author identifies as your country's national dictionary.

Most of the definitions listed related to women's genitalia and women more generally, while others don't specify gender.

c...t
// (say kt) ‡ ‡ Colloquial
–noun 1. the vagina and external female genitalia.
2. a contemptible person.
3. something which causes difficulty or aggravation.
4. women viewed collectively as sexual objects: there was a lot of c. . t at the party last night.
5. sexual intercourse with a woman.
–adjective
6. despicable or reprehensible: a c. .t thing to do.
–phrase 7. a bit of c. . t, a woman viewed as a sexual object.
8. a c. . t of a …, an extremely difficult, unpleasant, disagreeable, etc. …: a c. . t of a job. [Middle English c...t(e), k..t, queinte, of Germanic origin; compare Old Norse kunta]

http://stilgherrian.com/cunt-macquarie/

The Macquire dictionary (not open access): https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/

According to this, it remains a term in Australia to refer to female genitalia, as well as women as sexual objects. It would seem that it then is at least gendered in some of its uses.


Regardless, this is a US-based website where the majority of posters are American. For that reason and the others I have expressed in this thread, I don't like the OP's argument, particularly in the context of previous posts by him on gender issues.

The reason I am offended is the reason people use the word here in the US: Because it is the single most offensive word in the English language regarding women. The word offends and is intended to offend, and the OP knows that very well. I consider that greater grounds that your having to suffer the indignity of Redqueen's nerve in disagreeing with you.