Normally “female” is more used in clinical settings or about not-human animals. One reason it gives off incel energy is it reduces a person to what genitals they have.
So do all other categorisation terms, which on top of that, group them with others in the same category and help the people who’d blame everything on a category of people. Specially the “-ism” -> “-ist” categorisations.
I’d rather have scientific categorisation than a social one, that would enable dialogues such as:
A: Define a “woman”, you senator/judge/other public personality.
B: … I think I am not qualified to … *more gibberish* … ( because I need to be politically correct).
And that’s probably why people prefer this choice of words. To prevent the “Cis vs Trans - you dare assume their gender” bullies from finding them as easy prey. And over time, it becomes second nature.
I feel like, in this case OC (original commenter) is trying to admit that they don’t know the “female” as a person (neither do they know anything about the relationship between the 2) and claiming that the clout is just based on her being a female.
Whether or not that is accurate, OC does get the point across.
Now the following is just my agenda, but I think we ought not to give humans all the privilege of respect. It is the person, that we need to give that to.
That way, we, as a civilisation, will be ready just in case another species, capable of being a person, comes up, whether terrestrial or otherwise.
To be fair, in English most adjectives can also be used as nouns. I suppose I should have said that in this context, using it as an adjective is inappropriate.
Removed by mod
Normally “female” is more used in clinical settings or about not-human animals. One reason it gives off incel energy is it reduces a person to what genitals they have.
Fine by me, specially in this case.
So do all other categorisation terms, which on top of that, group them with others in the same category and help the people who’d blame everything on a category of people. Specially the “-ism” -> “-ist” categorisations.
I’d rather have scientific categorisation than a social one, that would enable dialogues such as:
A: Define a “woman”, you senator/judge/other public personality.
B: … I think I am not qualified to … *more gibberish* … ( because I need to be politically correct).
And that’s probably why people prefer this choice of words. To prevent the “Cis vs Trans - you dare assume their gender” bullies from finding them as easy prey. And over time, it becomes second nature.
I feel like, in this case OC (original commenter) is trying to admit that they don’t know the “female” as a person (neither do they know anything about the relationship between the 2) and claiming that the clout is just based on her being a female.
Whether or not that is accurate, OC does get the point across.
Now the following is just my agenda, but I think we ought not to give humans all the privilege of respect. It is the person, that we need to give that to. That way, we, as a civilisation, will be ready just in case another species, capable of being a person, comes up, whether terrestrial or otherwise.
To be fair, in English most adjectives can also be used as nouns. I suppose I should have said that in this context, using it as an adjective is inappropriate.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator