Here’s my two cents. It’s hard for people to keep up with the euphemism treadmill. There was a time when the word “female” didn’t have the negative connotation that it does now mostly thanks to co-opting by incels. It should also be stated that the word “male” doesn’t have the same negative connotations and it’s similar to how there’s slurs for black people but none for white people.

So why do people find “female” offensive? Well for starters it’s dehumanizing. Women is a less academic term and female implies some biological essentialism. I think the crux as to why it’s a big deal now is that women do not refer to themselves as females in the manner that men do. Men do not think of themselves as males, they do not call other men males, men call themselves men. male and female are simply outdated terms.

I suspect one day as society moves towards a more genderqueer position men and women will become unacceptable to say too. Idk. Like I think we need to acknowledge that there is such thing as a euphemism treadmill, that languages change, words become offensive or nonoffensive over time, and like all we can do in order to be a fucking decent human bean is to conform to society’s standards as to what is acceptable as according to the treadmill. Unless it’s some shit like calling the homeless, the unhoused. Then in those specific instances we got to run against the treadmill. But in this specific instance, we need to run with the treadmill on this one. Nothing feels better than conforming with society.

  • smiley [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    There was a time when the word “female” didn’t have the negative connotation that it does now mostly thanks to co-opting by incels.

    I feel obligated to point out that Ferengi in 90s Star Trek called women “female” and it was supposed to make you understand that they were misogynistic. So it’s not really something that started with incels over the last few years.

  • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pro-tip:

    Never correct a person who refers to women as “females”

    Don’t ever teach misogynists how to refine their language and to develop a more socially-acceptable way of concealing their attitudes.

    Let them throw up those red flags immediately so that people can immediately avoid chuds who use this language.

    shit like calling the homeless, the unhoused

    I have a strong preference for “rough sleepers” because there are people who are in temporary housing, that are couch surfing etc. which don’t strictly fit into the term homeless but who experience precarious (and typically inadequate) housing and because some people consider places home, such as their cars (sometimes by preference), and devaluing what a person calls home because it doesn’t meet my personal definition of a home is kinda shitty whereas acknowledging that their home may be precarious or inadequate without erasing the fact that it’s home to them, I think, is preferable.

    /rant

    • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      Correcting a misogynist is more likely to provoke a visible reaction than ignoring problematic speech. If it isn’t corrected, it becomes normal.

      • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, that’s kind of the point though.

        I think it’s preferable that using the term “female” as a noun is normalised among people who see women as objects and that they continue using that term because it’s like a klaxon identifying people who are misogynists or who have latent misogynistic beliefs.

        If we coach misogynists in ways to conceal their misogyny then it becomes much, much harder to identify them especially in social media spaces.

        I’d much rather that these people loudly announce themselves to the people who know better than to blend in with people who are progressive and radical.

        Teaching people to adjust their language doesn’t change their beliefs.

        • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Misogynists have historically held more institutional power than women. We had a time when women knew how to speak inclusively and misogynists didn’t, it was called the 1960s. It sucked.

          • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I know that those times sucked. But they didn’t suck because the people who are oppressing and exploiting us didn’t know to couch their language in progressive wording. I think that framing it in that way is a very idealistic take and does a serious disservice to the realities that oppressed groups faced in the 60s because the people who were fighting for better circumstances definitely weren’t out on the streets demanding that their oppressors use more polite language while they screw them over.

            Take a look at Joe Biden’s progressive verbal stance and the virtue-signalling events he holds compared to what he’s actually done to protect and defend the rights of trans people as the perfect example of why kind words don’t mean shit when you’re beneath the jackboot.

            Look, you can do whatever you feel is important to you.

            Personally I just don’t see the value in training misogynists in how to be more effective predators by concealing themselves amongst people of good conscience to be anywhere close to a priority for me. Quite the opposite actually.

      • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We’ve moved away from that here to “unhoused” which is likely politically-motivated to narrow the scope of who faces inadequate and unstable housing to exclusively the people who are out on the streets tonight.

        So, y’know, if you’ve got a couch to crash on for this week then it’s basically a screw you: you’re totally fine and we’re not going to consider you kinda deal.

        • RoomAndBored [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think one of the reasons of using unhoused over rough sleeper or homeless, is that unhoused using the participle -housed- implies that there is someone who should do the housing (and is failing) rather than a failure of the unhoused to find their own shelter.

          That being said, I don’t think it’s a strong implication, and you’re right it doesn’t cover the scope of people in precarious housing situations.

  • judgeholden [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    you also saw that 8000 comment thread of people whining that they can’t talk about ‘the feeeemales’? I was thinking about posting it to the dunk tank, but reddit seems like low hanging fruit these days

    • AcidSmiley [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going with comrade Feinberg on this, i use woman for the gender identity, feminine for the social role and female for biological characteristics. If you need an adjective relating to woman, it’s womanly, if you need a noun relating to feminine, it’s fem / femme, if you want to use female as a noun you better be talking about a dog and not a human being.

      leslie-feinberg

      • ChestRockwell [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah that’s how I understand it. Like saying “that’s a female horse” is normal and fine.

        The issue is saying “look at that female over there” or “she is a female”. That’s the dehumanizing shit, “look at that woman” or “she is a woman” is far less weird as well.

              • Owl [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think the biggest difference is that brd isn’t massive.

                But I also vaguely remember there being a different brd too early on? Whatever it was, this one was the main brd for most of SRS’s relevancy.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Maybe it’s the shading or something that’s making it look weird to me? Like it looks basically right but there’s just something different.

                  Or maybe I’ve changed! 🤔 😧

        • SerLava [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because of the demeaning usage as a noun, some people are starting to get uncomfortable with even using female as an adjective, and you will hear people use “woman” as an adjective like “she became the first woman triathlete” which isn’t really right but it’s not that bad… I dunno, I’m a guy so take my two cents for what they’re worth, but I don’t think we should surrender the entire word “female” to weird online fascist nerds

          • happybirthdaygonzolo [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think as a whole we should try to make language gender neutral. But I can think of better hills to die on. Like most people are conscious of referring to women as female, even women. As we become more aware of it then I think things will start to change.

          • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not big on hard grammar rules so in the contexts that I see it used in “woman” does add extra meanings like, adulthood and agency while “female” might not.

            There was a post a week or two ago about “men having sex with females” which kinda made my ears prick up. Because female can include the concepts of babies and corpses when woman seems to rarely be used to include those things.

            So it feels easier for me understand using the term woman when referring to a group of that should naturally exclude members who would be included when using the term female.

        • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was confused for a sec but this makes sense. I guess I avoid spaces where incels post though because I haven’t really seen this at all.

    • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is something that trips me up, especially when I’m speaking.

      I tend to use some version of “oriented towards women” or “stereotypically 'women’s [such and such]” but using “feminine” (and “masculine”) can often work too.

      I try to avoid saying “female” as an adjective because it is biologically-essentist and exclusive of all women. But it does make for clunkier wording often.

    • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      sometimes it’s rephrasing entirely like “first woman in space” rather than “first female cosmonaut”.

      if it’s relevant to bring up biological norms then female and male are fine as long as you’re not trampling over trans people, but we should certainly avoid constructions like “men and females” which the quark and incels use without thinking.

    • culpritus [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve seen the use of ‘fem’ or similar used for the adjective to be more inclusive and less awkward. A ‘fem space’ is inclusive of trans women, where as a ‘female space’ very well might not be in many cases, and it’s harder to know without specifically asking. Just what I’ve been seeing in use lately.

  • Brak [they/them, e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    using “female” has been cringe for years outside of biology & certain healthcare settings. unsurprised reddit is still rehashing early 2010’s discourse

    shrug-outta-hecks

  • Averagemaoist [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “it does now mostly thanks to co-opting by incels”

    I don’t really get where this talking point comes from, its just not true. Have you ever browsed an incel forum to see what those hogs are thinking? They never refer to women as females. Ever. I’ve never seen it once in one of their spaces. Not on r/braincels, not on r/incels, not in incelsco or whatever new forum they’ve migrated to in the past few years. They exclusively refer to women as foids or holes.

    Referring to women as females is very common in the African American community though.

    • mah [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Reality doesn’t seem to matter anymore. When libs are fixated on correcting you, you have no hope of redemption. They need to feel superior and use their “correct” language to emphasize their superiority, regardless of whether what they’re emphasizing is entirely fabricated.

  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I appreciate your two cents, but tbh I think it’s much simpler. Personally I feel the vibe is the same when people use “male” as well in the same context - that’s just quite rare to happen.

    It’s because it’s weirdly clinical language. It feels weird, you wouldn’t describe your mother as a “female”, you’d call her a “woman”.
    It’s detached, sort of dehumanising really.

  • ChestRockwell [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unless it’s some shit like calling the homeless, the unhoused

    Yeah without any actual policy behind it it’s very silly. However the semantic change pisses off chuds so I’m not entirely against it. Critical support, like “sure let’s call them unhoused but what’s the plan to stop the problem”.

  • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s funny because IRL I hear both girls and guys call women ‘females’ at the same rate. It’s especially weirder when girls refer to themselves as “female” as a noun