| Board List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/26/24 1:07:43 AM #370 | TheOtherMike posted... In specific contexts, usually scientific or academic. Nope. All four of the links I gave say that 'female' can be used synonymously with 'female person'. Also, even if you were right about scientific or academic contexts, that still wouldn't mean that it's grammatically incorrect to use the term that way outside of those contexts. It might be awkward to refer to a crow as a 'corvid' in a nonscientific, nonacademic context, but it wouldn't be grammatically incorrect. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/26/24 12:54:14 AM #368 | TheOtherMike posted... No it isn't. Show me a dictionary that doesn't permit 'female' as a noun. Here are several that do: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/female https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/female https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/26/24 12:49:30 AM #366 | TheOtherMike posted... Because the word is no longer correctly used in that way. Well, it's grammatically correct, but not politically correct. I think we agree. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/26/24 12:48:34 AM #365 | archizzy posted... This topic gave me so much entertainment at work lol. Thank you to all theparticipants I guess is the word Ill use so as not to get modded. Hey, it's like I always say: you gotta put the truth in Struthiomimus. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/26/24 12:38:45 AM #361 | TheOtherMike posted... Incorrect. Why? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 11:31:00 PM #359 | TheOtherMike posted... Modern use is not exclusively beholden to historical use. Correct. But if there's historical use of the word as a noun (specifically in reference to humans, yes), then people who use it as a noun today aren't 'taking an adjective and turning it into a noun'. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 10:29:52 PM #355 | TheOtherMike posted... When referring to humans (outside specific clinical and scientific contexts), female is an adjective and using it as a noun is incorrect. I mean, it has a centuries-long history of being used as a noun in reference to humans, and every dictionary permits its use as a noun. Referring to women as 'females' is a bad idea for sociocultural reasons, but it isn't grammatically incorrect. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 10:20:12 PM #350 | TheOtherMike posted... What part of this are you not understanding? If it was already a noun, then they aren't taking an adjective and turning it into a noun. Right? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 10:10:01 PM #347 | TheOtherMike posted... Which "came first" is irrelevant to noun derivation I thought you were claiming that people who use 'female' as a noun are taking an adjective and turning it into a noun. My mistake. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 10:02:35 PM #345 | CSCA33 posted... Dang, champ. Another swing and a miss? I know you're dedicated to any misunderstanding that lets you sneer at me, but we're actually saying the same thing. 'Female' is (sometimes) dehumanizing because of the meaning, not because of the grammar. We can change the grammar and refer to women as 'female humans' instead of 'females', but this is still just as dehumanizing because the biological connotations of 'female' are still there, regardless of whether the word is being used as an adjective or a noun. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 9:14:34 PM #342 | TheOtherMike posted... No, I'm not. Which "came first" is irrelevant to noun derivation, and "Persian" in the context you used is not a derivative noun. I'll need sources and such. '-ian' is a very common adjectival suffix in English, and it's also very common in English to take adjectives and turn them into nouns. So I'm thinking it's highly likely that words like 'Persian' started as adjectives and then became nouns. This is all beside the point anyway, since 'female' was apparently always a noun: https://www.etymonline.com/word/female |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 7:48:42 PM #336 | TheOtherMike posted... No they aren't. So you're claiming that 'Persian' was a noun first, and later became an adjective? How do you know? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 7:47:55 PM #335 | xGhostchantx posted... Nah, in English it was an adjective first because wif (later wifman > woman) still filled the role of 'adult human female' at the time of its introduction into English after the invasion. A wif is specifically human, female was not; it was the antonym of masculin What's the evidence that it was an adjective first? I acknowledge the wif stuff, but that doesn't mean 'female' was an adjective first. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 7:46:27 PM #334 | CSCA33 posted... No, still off base. It can be problematic because it can be dehumanizing and othering, or downright misogynistic. This isnt about grammatical considerations. So you're agreeing with my point. Noun versus adjective doesn't matter. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 7:01:01 PM #328 | TheOtherMike posted... Because those are nouns. They're nouns formed from adjectives. Like 'female'. (Not that I'm defending referring to women as 'females', by the way. I agree that's cringe. But the idea that it's cringe because of grammatical considerations is just braindead.) And actually, now that I look into it, 'female' was arguably a noun long before it was an adjective. It's derived from Latin femina, a noun meaning 'woman'. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 6:54:53 PM #323 | I guess 'Gaul' isn't an adjective. Better example: "The Greeks defeated the Persians". |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 6:48:00 PM #321 | TheOtherMike posted... The inherent negatively is in using an adjective as a noun. So we're back to "The Romans defeated the Gauls". I don't see any anti-Roman or anti-Gaul sentiment in that statement. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 6:44:20 PM #317 | [LFAQs-redacted-quote] It's an adjective, yes. [LFAQs-redacted-quote] I love it. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lesbian [LFAQs-redacted-quote] So your claim is that it's never acceptable to refer to people with nouns that pick out an essential trait of theirs? Or is using 'the' the issue? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 6:38:45 PM #314 | PaperSplash posted... Fair (though I will point out that is referring to a very definite group of kids and not being used to generalize). That's why 'the' is called 'the definite article'. We could generalize about kids (not 'the kids', but 'kids'), and there'd be nothing intrinsically offensive or negative about that. "Kids need supportive, loving adults in their life", and so on. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 6:35:50 PM #312 | [LFAQs-redacted-quote] The 'lesbian' point destroyed you this badly. Alright then. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 6:33:01 PM #309 | [LFAQs-redacted-quote] Why would that be any less true with an adjective as opposed to a noun? [LFAQs-redacted-quote] (Guys, should we tell Hypnospace about the word 'lesbian'? Will they be able to handle it?) [LFAQs-redacted-quote] Yep. And the intention is what makes it bad, not the grammar. It's astonishing that you aren't getting this. [LFAQs-redacted-quote] So when you hear a sentence like "The Romans defeated the Gauls at the Battle of Alesia", you interpret the speaker as being anti-Roman and anti-Gaul? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 6:28:23 PM #308 | PaperSplash posted... several of the set phrases "the children" tends to actually be used in have strong cultural baggage of their own ("think of the children", "save the children" in certain contexts). But the point is that there's no inherent negativity in using noun or 'the [noun]' constructions. Also, I don't see any baggage in a sentence like "I met the parents yesterday, but I won't be meeting the kids until next week." |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 5:53:36 PM #301 | [LFAQs-redacted-quote] Because words and phrases have culturally-determined connotations. It's the racist context that makes such speech bad, not the grammatical structure of the sentences used. This is obvious when we consider parallel constructions like 'the children', which has no anti-child connotation. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 5:41:43 PM #297 | hockeybabe89 posted... Oh we're pretending "the blacks" hasn't been a dehumanizing term forever. No. It's just that grammar (noun versus adjective and so on) has nothing to do with the dehumanization. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 5:39:51 PM #294 | [LFAQs-redacted-quote] Neither sounds 'worse'. The latter is just unusual--although demographers often refer to 'whites', 'blacks', 'gays', etc. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 5:38:38 PM #292 | CSCA33 posted... Pick any number of other groups and do the same, whether that's transgender, black, etc. Men, women, children, humans, Americans, citizens, consumers, gamers, etc. Why are any of these 'reductive'? Why are they more 'reductive' in this form compared to using an adjective instead? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 5:28:26 PM #289 | CSCA33 posted... Using it as a noun, however, reduces the person down to a trait (that being female.) Why would a noun be any more reductive than an adjective, though? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 4:42:30 PM #283 | UnholyMudcrab posted... Like, how the fuck does a topic about misogynists calling women the wrong term turn into a slap fight about the difference between American and British philosophy? Gender, gender norms, whether gender norms are bad, whether social norms in general are bad, whether it's possible to dissent from social norms, the power of society over people's minds and identities, the homogeneity (or not) of thinking within and across societies, examples of fundamental differences between societies. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 4:31:44 PM #278 | ellis123 posted... Hence why I said you were trolling. What are some fundamental differences between American and British media? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 4:21:08 PM #273 | ellis123 posted... That alone is already them just wholesale saying that the fundamental view of philosophy from philosophers is radically different. This is an amazing example. American and British philosophy aren't fundamentally different; they're fundamentally the same, and that's why they're famously categorized together as 'analytic' or 'Anglo-American'. The major schism in Western philosophy in the twentieth century was between the analytic/Anglo-American and continental traditions. I'm guessing you didn't know this, or else you would've gone with some other example. ellis123 posted... Heck, you can just look at British versus American media if you want. Yep. I don't see any fundamental differences there either. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 3:45:14 PM #268 | ellis123 posted... In many ways we do. Such as? Remember that you used the word 'fundamentally'. ellis123 posted... Something that can be easily disproven by a simple Google search is not charitable. I don't know what this is referring to. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 3:36:14 PM #265 | ellis123 posted... No, you're randomly deciding to cut out "there's a difference" and pretend it was a backpedal It was the charitable reading. Otherwise, I'd have to interpret you as claiming that American society views things fundamentally different from British society, and so on. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 3:07:42 PM #262 | ellis123 posted... Oh, you're just trolling. No, I'm pointing out the backpedal from "every society views things fundamentally differently" to the much less wacky claim "There's a difference". |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 2:43:53 PM #260 | ellis123 posted... There's a difference. I accept the backpedal. ellis123 posted... The convergence is entirely centered on what I've been saying, that the act of thinking that you aren't the sum of your experiences is main character syndrome. Well, it's just belief in a degree of free will. What's your evidence for this convergence? |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 2:28:36 PM #258 | ellis123 posted... And such critical thinking is a part of your personality The results of it aren't. Rationality is what it is, regardless of differences in personality. ellis123 posted... Hence why every society views things fundamentally differently. That's obviously false. There are differences (though they're rarely fundamental), but the critical thinkers from various societies tend to converge on similar basic principles. ellis123 posted... That is a bleak way to view your own, current personality. Truth matters more than bleakness. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 2:07:33 PM #254 | ellis123 posted... Not really. Yes, really. Society has a default influence, but it's possible to counteract most or all of that influence through critical thinking. ellis123 posted... Your feelings are not in-authentic just because they are built to fit in with societal norms. That's exactly what 'inauthentic' means, yes. If (or insofar as) I have my perspective because society gave it to me, it isn't genuinely mine. I'm just a recipient of the programming. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 1:41:38 PM #252 | ellis123 posted... Yet your thinking as such is a societal thing. Only minimally, if it all. ellis123 posted... Are you saying that you yourself are lesser for thinking such a way? Insofar as I do, yes; that's the obvious implication of what I said. Inauthenticity is a flaw, whether in myself or in others. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 1:07:37 PM #250 | ellis123 posted... Everyone inherently allows their sense of self to be dictated by societal norms and that doesn't make you lesser in any real way. Sure it does. Thinking for oneself is always better than being a mere product of social circumstances. I'm not saying that authenticity is easy, though. ellis123 posted... The problem comes from what those norms are and how they interact with others. That's an additional problem in this case, yes. Traditional masculinity and femininity both portray a human being as 'less than' what they could and should be without those gender norms. They place artificial and damaging restrictions on what a person is. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 12:29:17 PM #243 | ellis123 posted... Internalized misandry would be actively viewing yourself as inherently lesser Anyone who lets their sense of self be dictated by the traditional concept of masculinity (or femininity) is thereby 'viewing themselves as inherently lesser'. This is the fundamental reason why traditional masculinity and femininity are 'toxic'. |
| Topic | Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"? |
| The_Apologist 02/25/24 12:16:38 PM #239 | ellis123 posted... Hence why "internalized misogyny" is a thing while "internalized misandry" is not. 'Internalized misandry' is another term for toxic masculinity. But you're right about why the term is less used: men are considered the default, and this often makes their issues invisible in gender discourse, which focuses on otherness. |
| Topic | What's your favorite fictional ship? |
| The_Apologist 02/24/24 12:19:21 AM #8 | [LFAQs-redacted-quote] Nice |
| Topic | What's your favorite fictional ship? |
| The_Apologist 02/24/24 12:19:07 AM #7 | Rocinante |
| Topic | Save a drowning puppy or $20k in a briefcase |
| The_Apologist 02/03/24 12:58:52 AM #22 | Everyone choosing the puppy is saying that they'd rather save one puppy than several puppies. |
| Topic | Save a drowning puppy or $20k in a briefcase |
| The_Apologist 02/03/24 12:34:31 AM #4 | Take the cash and donate it to an animal shelter. |
| Board List | Page List: 1 |