Why wouldn't it be? Old dictionaries are riddled with errors and mistranslations.

βλαύτη is just a slipper. Not a slipper worn by fops. Not a slipper worn by lesbians. Not a slipper worn by aliens. Just a slipper.

Why do you keep insisting that the Professors are wrong and that this "worn by fops" translation should be retained? Are you an expert in Ancient Greek translation and you're sure they have it wrong?

The article gives βλαύτη as an example of a word whose definition was updated in order to remove offensive language. They're not saying the old definition was incorrect, there is no indication of that.

I'm no expert, but I did study 2 years of full time Greek at uni. I don't specifically about βλαύτη, but I do know that berating effeminate or overly vain men would not be out of character for any Greek author.

> The article gives βλαύτη as an example of a word whose definition was updated in order to remove offensive language.

Ackcherly, it says "Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover." This may be just the antiquated bit, not the offensive one.

The article was written by a journalist. The dictionary was written by the Professors. If they say that their definition is better I'm going with that above both a journalist and a second year student unless you provide something a little more compelling evidence-wise.

Presumably they talked to the editors. I don’t think they opened up LSJ at random, compared an entry to the new version and concluded that the change was made for the sake of political correctness.

I suspect your assumptions are wrong because you don't know many journalists. I have that misfortune. They will have taken the juiciest part of whatever they were told and made a story from it. Facts are entirely secondary.