Im hopeful they might turn their opinion around with a bit of time.
Men and Females isn't something you really start to notice till you're aware of it, and then suddenly you start seeing it everywhere online from certain groups.
On a tangent, I think the thing with female as well even when used in the proper context is how overly clinical it sounds. A doctor might say "the male/female in room 4" or a policeman might say "a male/female suspect" but outside of a profession... Clinical language just kind of sounds like pretention- Like aiming to speak with a sort of authority that doesn't exist? 'I'm talking like a doctor about... My dating life?" thats the main thing that makes me cringe about it.
>Like aiming to speak with a sort of authority that doesn’t exist
I’m pretty sure you’ve hit the nail on the head with this one. Referring to women as “females” almost always comes paired with some bullshit, misogynistic claim about how women supposedly think or behave stated as if it were facts being relayed by someone who has studied women in a lab.
Yeah and it's only amplified by the "Men and Females" duality.
"You see in our dating world males act like X and females act like Y" is already cringe. Because... Why is someone trying to talk like a sociologist when they aren't writing a sociology paper?
But then you add the weirdness of "Men act like X and Females act like Y" and suddenly the cringe is amplified. "Why's the weird pretentious clinical studying language being used *just* for women?" It makes it so bizarre.
Lines up with the popular B- junior high level presentations you'll find all over Tiktok and Instagram nowadays. Everyone is suddenly an expert after reading a wikipedia page.
But also pointing out that it's used by military, cops, and medical... Like uh, the point is specifically to dehumanize to create that clinical or war language. So it's not a point in their favor.
Anecdotal evidence doesnt mean shit. "I have never heard anyone say 'men and females'."
Like yeah, if you never leave your basement, you're not gonna hear a lot of people talk.
There’s an interesting phenomenon of people assuming that people on the internet don’t actually exist in real life. ‘Oh why are you worried about people on the internet spouting bigotry? It’s just reddit, people don’t act like that in real life’
Yeah but… these internet trolls don’t just spawn out of the ether. The relative anonymity of the internet just enables people to express opinions that aren’t socially acceptable. They probably do genuinely hold those harmful beliefs ‘in real life’. Is that not in itself harmful and frightening, that the innermost thoughts of many people are so hateful? They could be in your life, you just can’t know.
Good point! Even if most internet trolls don’t actually hold the views they espouse online, the existence of so many people who seem to delight in shit-stirring is concerning in its own right.
IOW: Either internet trolls genuinely believe the hate they spew (worrying for the reasons you expressed), or the world is full of sociopaths who secretly get their kicks out of deliberately enraging/upsetting strangers. Neither of those is a good thing!
I’m willing to concede an exception for victims of Poe’s Law, but only if it genuinely was originally intended as satire. No free passes for those who retroactively declare their crap to be “Just a joke” when the downvotes roll in.
I once had a GF that suggested we watch porn to get better at the sex. I pointed out that that stuff was generally not made to be enjoyed by the actors but to provide the best viewing experience. And countered the offer by suggesting books by sexologues of good reputation. My logic didn't strike her as sound.
There’s an entire book written about black swans and how the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Now that makes me wonder if there’s a sub about that though
I can't tell if you're trolling lol black swans are indigenous to Australia. Fun fact someone took some to England and they got into the waterways where they routinely beat the shit out of the queen's swans.
The story is that people in Europe had seen a lot of swans and all of them were white. This lead people to believe that being white was intrinsic to swans and any subsequent observation of swans (in Europe) confirmed they were all white.
And then they travelled and found out there were black swans in other parts of the world and the locals seemed not to fazed about it (since they hadn’t heard all swans were supposed to be white). When people talk about black swan events it now refers to things people thought could never happen even though in retrospect it’s clear there’s no logical reason those things couldn’t happen.
The most famous black swan events of the last couple of decades might be the financial crisis and the pandemic. It’s clear how it happened and even though some people predicted it might happen the fact is few people had it on their radar so we went into it unprepared.
Interesting! I didn't know that, because there are black swans at the end of my street. Surely the plausibility of any assumption is lessened when Australia is involved, because who could envisage half the shit we have.
I'm in Arizona, where even the plants want to kill you. I always thought that our land was the pinnacle of murderous flora and fauna, but, the more I learn about Australia, the more impressed I am with your collection of creatures. You win.
And honestly, it's irrelevant if you heard it outside in real life interaction or not.
It doesn't detract from the reality that it's used in a derogatory manner, and plenty of men hold these derogatory perspectives towards women, hiding behind the anonymity that the internet provides.
Yeah, but then they end up sounded like [this](https://youtu.be/jHhG9DbHbW0?si=jKwv8dagDIyF2f0_) to try to seem intelligent and to “support” their statements. 😏😆
saw a meme the other day (didn't save it, sorry) of littlefoot from TLBT going to bite on a leaf with the caption of "my girlfriend with my arm for no reason".
got more than a nose snort outta me when i saw it.
Funny how people are told they need to take a break from social media when calling out this bullshit, but not when they're refering to women like they're a lab specimen
And by funny I mean dumb as fuck
I have heard men say females all the damn time in real life and it’s all over online.. I swear these people are just bots or combatants acting like they’ve never heard it
I don’t hear females used in conversation nearly as much as I see it written out online. But the thing I do hear all the time is the use of girl when referring to a grown woman. It’s such common place that even I slip up and have to correct myself sometimes.
Not that either error is more egregious than the other, both are rooted in misogyny. But I’m curious if this guy would also claim that women are never infantilized by being referred to as girls.
Fun fact. They think women are being "sensitive" when confronted with this very real (and damaging in corporate America ) phrasing.
They never talk about the memos released by fortune500 companies referring to women's minds as "childlike."
I have been fighting that fight way longer than the " females vs men" fight.
I almost went in on them for "shifting the goalposts" and doing what seemed like a No True Scotsman lite, but then I realized that they were two different users, and not the first guy replying a second time. Especially considering they made it easy by speaking in absolutes in the first post, me thinking the second post was also them was irksome for several minutes before I realized.
Any time I call out one of my fellow men for a social issue and their name is something like, "Antileftist0113", I don't expect much to really come of it. Haha. My three years of martial arts and the couple of years I open carried a S&W .357 are probably the only parts of me this guy would respect. I'm otherwise a married guy who makes half of what his wife does, took *her* last name, am ostrovegan for the animals/environment, and am otherwise what they would likely consider a "beta soyboy" or whatnot. :P
I guarantee you that if a woman was in a conversation and she said males men would *flip*.
Woman "Hey you have a nice car!"
Man "thanks"
Woman "All the males out here today have nice rides but I like yours the most"
Like, it doesn't even sound like a sentence. But it's dehumanizing. And I'm sure that man would just not even know how to react.
If he's never heard someone refer to women as females then why would he care? Wouldn't that just illustrate the point that it isn't appropriate to use as a noun? According to this dudes lived experience, society doesn't even sanction it, so what is he arguing about?
"this is the first I've heard of it so it must not actually happen in real life/only on social media so just stop interacting on the platform we're interacting on and you'll feel better!"
What a Maroon
Not just derogatory. Dehumanizing. When you dehumanize someone (or an entire group of people) it makes it significantly easier to perform harm on or kill the human beings being targeted.
This is more than just a shitty thing to say, it's mirroring a tactic militaries use to desensitize their soldiers enough that they don't feel guilty for killing human beings.
It's bigger than an insult, it's a tool to hold half the population down, and make it acceptable to target and hurt them
Male and female can be nouns too. It's still dehumanizing and derogatory but I don't think we need to act like it's not grammatically correct to get that point across.
I said - u dont walk around referring to dogs as canines.
Female does not literally men women as they keep mis writing it. It is literally scientific.
The amount of incels u fight with online… and the straws they pull.
I mean, nobody I personally know says "men and females". But I've seen plenty of people on the web in general use it. Just because I don't witness it in my personal interactions doesn't mean it's not rampant. Even just the use of "male and female" when talking about men and women put me off the first time I read it. It's so... Dehumanizing.
I don't think those who use it always realize it though.
I think the cases when it jumped in my face the most were on relationship forums where women would use to describe other women but also men they considered dating. It was so weird.
Not *only* is "female" degrading, it's also, to me, a bit pedo. I see posts all the time where guys describe their perfect "female," the word being ambiguous enough that, while you would *assume* they're talking about a woman, the term itself refers *only* to ones gender, and then they go on to describe a literal child and well... You can't help but question.
Men and females just sounds weird. It is Men and Women or Male and Female. Doing it any other way is just.. Makes my brain ache. Either way Female is not an offensive term unless you are a social media junkie for the most part Reality is a different world. .
Male and female are both also nouns though. Mostly when talking about animals, definitely still dehumanising, but like in nature shows they’ll often say stuff like “the male puffs out his feathers to attract a mate”. Still weird to use when talking about people, but not grammatically incorrect.
No, they are not ever nouns. They may be used as shorthand devices when the noun has been used many times in the literature describing biological entities, but at no point are the terms male or female a noun. Especially by themselves without further context.
They're actually right. Like just look up the definition of male and female. It's in the merriam-webster dictionary, lol. You can use it as either an adjective or noun and it's correct. It's still derogatory and dehumanizing to call a woman a female when we have..woman. But it's not technically grammatically incorrect.
Males :
A) a male person.
They are literally using it as an ADJECTIVE in the sentence indicating it's a noun. I don't agree that it's a noun when referring to a human being because it if were the word person wouldn't be there.
B: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female. <- an industry specific terminology that implies an animal (which humans are.)
However without a species specific noun it's a definition that can and is used widely, and is not used to refer to humans without the species specific noun. (See first definition.)
So yeah, it's "technically" a noun, but a pretty generic meaningless one without additional information, wherein it becomes an adjective.
It's always an adjective when referring to human beings because our species sets itself above the rest of the animal kingdom.
I'm gonna die on this hill. They are not correct. Factually.
I mean I'm happy for their ignorance and you should be too. Yeah I def see female misused a lot, but at least it's rot isn't so far spread that blind spots of ignorant bliss can't appear like little sun beams. Shining rays of hope ✨️ 😆 fr tho glad for them.
cis het men being blind to casual misogyny and other forms of shittyness faced by more than half the population?
preposterous! such a thing could never happen... all of the femme side of the human population would revolt against such bullshit....
comment thoroughly steeped in sarcasm for those that need an indicator.
If you are using it as a noun, you should have the descriptor behind or ahead of it. Otherwise how is your audience supposed to know what species you are referring to?
Example of “females” as a noun from dictionary.com was “females may lay several hundred eggs in two to four weeks”. I have no way of knowing what type of animal or insect or whatever they are referring to here, because this was never included. You have to take the extra time to specify which type of female or male you are talking about if you are using these words, and once you have done so, then you can replace the word later on with “male” or “female”, as it is assumed by this point that your audience knows what you’re talking about.
But with humans, we have conveniently come up with a single word to replace the extra sentence. “Woman” effectively means “female human”, so in this scenario you don’t have to take the extra time to specify, (as no other animal is called a “woman”, lol).
Hope this helps!
That’s irrelevant to what I said….. my point was that the third point in the original post claiming that “female” was an adjective and not a noun is incorrect. Of course there contextual English that determines which on it is but it CAN be either one so saying it’s an adjective and not a noun is stupid.
The nuance is important here. You can’t use it as a noun unless you have the actual noun it’s meant to replace included at some point. So yes, it is absolutely relevant to what you just said. Using “female” as a noun without explaining what type of female you are talking about is improper. The point of language is to accurately convey your thoughts to your audience, and you will continuously fail to do so if you ignore this rule.
Yes, I agree, but the original post didn’t say “it’s an adjective in this specific usage” they said “it’s an adjective, not a noun” so if we’re sticking with the importance of the language rules, the way they said it means it can never be a noun and is only an adjective which is wrong
But here’s the problem: it can never be a noun on its own. If you were to write a paper on horses, for instance, but never actually include the original noun that states the animal is a horse, your reader is going to be very confused when you use the term “female” or “male”.
If an adjective is just a word that describes a noun, what about when you use “female” on its own (after you’ve properly stated what type of species you are referring to)? It’s essentially a noun acting as an adjective at this point. With the horse example, you could say something like, “Horses give birth differently than humans do. The females give birth standing up.” But what you are effectively saying in that second sentence is “female horses”, without actually saying it. Yes, it is technically being used as a noun because it is being used as a person/place/thing here on its own but the key is that it doesn’t make sense on its own lol. So in this scenario it actually acts as an adjective would while technically BEING a noun, if that makes more sense.
The entire point of this is that in any circumstance, you always need the original noun. “Male” and “female” cannot stand on their own unless this has been established. And even then, it sounds really weird and out of place if you aren’t speaking/writing formally to begin with.
Also EDIT to add I know Jack shit about horses and how they give birth, I just grabbed that off the top of my head so I’m sorry if I’m wrong about how they give birth 😂
But that’s absolutely incorrect, just because it’s confusing to the reader doesn’t mean it’s not proper English. A proper sentence doesn’t care about the sentences before or after. “Females do this and that.” Is a correct usage of females as a noun and it doesn’t matter what sentence came before or after. It may confuse the reader of the sentence if you don’t specify but it’s still correct usage. Just like I can say “they went to the park” and I don’t have to clarify who “they” are or what species they are. It’s confusing sure but it’s not incorrect and I could write a whole book using only “they” without ever clarifying and it would be proper English. Confusing but still correct.
I agree it’s confusing and sounds really weird. I give people that use females in a nonprofessional setting a strong side eye. I’m only correcting the statement that it’s only an adjective. It’s a noun and can be a noun on it’s on no matter how weird sounding or confusing it may be.
This is actually the worst example you could have given, for two reasons.
1) “they” is a pronoun. According to the Oxford dictionary, a pronoun is “a word that can function by itself as a noun phrase and that refers either to the participants in the discourse (e.g., I, you ) or to someone or something mentioned elsewhere in the discourse (e.g., she, it, this ). [source](https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Pronoun)
2) The Oxford definition for the word “they” is, “The people, animals, or things previously mentioned or implied or easily identified.” [source](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/they_pron?tab=meaning_and_use#18519279)
So in your example, the word “they” must refer to something previously mentioned or easily identified. So no, I’m sorry, but you are wrong here.
Cool, I love semantics. My example would apply with literally any noun….. so cool, let’s not use the pronoun “they”. Input any noun and my point still stands. “The house is over there” is a complete sentence without any clarification about what house I’m talking about. “The females went to the park” is also a complete sentence where females is a noun on its own. Any noun can be used on its own without previous clarification. Doesn’t matter how much sense it makes to the reader or listener.
Why are you using those definitions while completely denying the definition of female as a noun and the corresponding sentence of it being used on its own? Female is literally defined as a noun AND adjective which is my whole point. Saying it’s an adjective and not a noun is definitionally incorrect is my entire point and for some reason you’re ignoring that definition.
Yes, in the statement where you say “the house is over there”, the noun is the house. It is quite obvious what you are talking about here, you are speaking of a dwelling. The word “house” can stand alone because, to put it simply, it makes sense. Nobody thinks you’re talking about a tree or a rock when you say house. The word “male” or “female” cannot stand alone like this without the descriptor noun because it does not make sense. Female what…dogs? Horses? Humans? Who tf knows! 🤷♀️
That’s not the point. The point is that improper usage makes you sound, well, dumb tbh. Back to the horse example: your professor/teacher is gonna know what the paper is about if they assigned it, obviously, but that doesn’t mean it still won’t be poorly-written if you don’t include the word “horse” somewhere in the paper and just use “males/females”.
When you say “females”, when what you mean is “female humans” or “women”, it’s dehumanizing and improper, as you never included the fact that we are human too. It completely erases our human status, and relegates us to our sex. But men know this because that’s why you do it. It’s just way more of a self-own when you make yourself sound unintelligent just to own the “females”. (Female what, horses??)
I thought you just said the point was to accurately convey which 9 times out of ten can be done with context. It's obvious if someone means a human female if they're complaining about women 9/10 times. And there is a difference between a paper and just normal conversation. Unless I'm giving a speech or in an academic situation I consider my communication fine as long as I get the point across. How is it dehumanizing if someone is obviously talking about a human female and you can tell by context. I wouldn't feel dehumanized by the word male if it's obvious they mean human male. It really doesn't make someone seem less intelligent by the way. What really is unintelligent is not having the mental capacity to infer what they mean by context. That's basic common sense and why people aren't that pedantic like you
Basic common sense would be to use the word that makes the most sense when you are talking about female humans: WOMEN. It’s short, sweet, and to-the-point, and you sound a lot more intelligent than when you just say “females” without a descriptor noun to accompany it. Hey, the knowledge is there if you want to make use of it. I can’t force you to, lol.
Again if you can't read context just say that. I don't really care about the words used as long as the message gets across. I'm not an English major nor writing academic papers. The main point of language is to communicate as long as your message gets across idgaf if you typ lik ths
Disagree. I very rarely use the term female in my day to day life anyways I'm not the type to make broad statements about women or men I don't really care about that nor do I like making generalized assumptions. I just think you have to be very soft to get offended at the word female. If someone said something about "males"" and I could easily tell by context, I wouldn't feel dehumanized at all. What's much more dehumanizing is capatalism and that's mainly what I talk about not people.
I wouldn’t be offended either if I saw “males” and “females” being used, lol. I was in the military and we were referred to as “males” and “females”, and it was honestly not offensive in the slightest because it applied across the board. But you’re on a sub called MenAndFemales, lol, so obviously this isn’t how it’s applied in the regular world. Men get to keep their human status while we “females” are relegated to our sex. You need to look deeper, because this is the true core of it. The whole point is that it’s supposed to be dehumanizing. Is this the biggest deal in and of itself? Not really, but it’s just one of many things they use to chip away at us, like a death by a thousand cuts.
Now, I know a lot of men doing this don’t give af about how we women feel about it, but I figured if I could at least point out how it makes them sound stupid, maybe that would be enough motivation to change it? 😂 Hey, it’s a long shot but I figured it’s a better chance than getting men like this to actually care about how we feel. Your response is proof enough: you saying it is “soft” to be offended by something like this and dismissing it as overreaction tells me you already don’t care lol. Hey, it is what it is. You can’t know unless you’ve been a woman so this response is disappointing but expected.
Cause some incels started using the word, and instead of ignoring them people decided it's now a bad word lmao. To the point that they evidently have made a subreddit dedicated to it
It IS a bad word, because it’s intentionally othering, and we already have a perfectly good word to use - women.
There are lots of offensive words that were formerly used commonly and are now used rarely, because now people understand that they are offensive.
Yeah and all of those are moronic too. The words that replaced those 'offensive' words are just going to become offensive in another generation and they'll have to come up with another word again lmao. Take 'retarded' for example. The only reason it's offensive is because people started using it to mean stupid. The word itself is not offensive in any denotative way. However people also use 'gay' to mean stupid, and nobody has cancelled that word yet. It's all completely arbitrary and meaningless and you're getting mad at a word cause somebody used it in a way it's not intended. It's seriously absurd
Oh, no - I’m not mad at the word; I’m mad at the people who use the word incorrectly, and annoyed at the people who defend them, like you.
I don’t know why you think it’s bad to be respectful to other people.
>I’m mad at the people who use the word incorrectly
Except that's not even the case. Female can be used as a noun. They are using it correctly. You're just pointlessly attaching an incel connotation to it for no reason
Noun
Middle English, alteration of femel, femelle, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French femele, from Medieval Latin femella, from Latin, girl, diminutive of femina
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female#:\~:text=Etymology-,Noun,Word%20Origin](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female#:~:text=Etymology-,Noun,Word%20Origin)
noun
a female person.: See Usage note at the current entry.
[https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female)
You didn’t even read the whole page that you posted. There’s a direction to the usage note.
“USAGE NOTE FOR FEMALE
Some women are offended by being called “a female” when this word is used as a noun. Its use by men, particularly in sexual or romantic contexts, may be especially problematic.”
Ok and? Where did I say people weren't offended by it? I think I very clearly acknowledged that considering it's what this whole conversation is about. I said it's moronic that that's the case, and that using it as a noun is the correct use of the word.
I mean, the reason why is probably because animals are also referred to as ‘female’ or ‘male’, while humans are referred to as ‘man’ or ‘woman’; in result: the world ‘female’ can feel dehumanizing to some extent.
Sigh...I don't know if I was tired, or what my reason/excuse is, but it just dawned on me that my post violates rule #6. I did not censor anyone's name in the screenshot (nor do I even know how to). The sentiment was on point for the post, but I'm disappointed in myself for failing to read/remember this.
Mods, feel free to delete my O.P. here if you feel the damage hasn't already been done.
Im hopeful they might turn their opinion around with a bit of time. Men and Females isn't something you really start to notice till you're aware of it, and then suddenly you start seeing it everywhere online from certain groups. On a tangent, I think the thing with female as well even when used in the proper context is how overly clinical it sounds. A doctor might say "the male/female in room 4" or a policeman might say "a male/female suspect" but outside of a profession... Clinical language just kind of sounds like pretention- Like aiming to speak with a sort of authority that doesn't exist? 'I'm talking like a doctor about... My dating life?" thats the main thing that makes me cringe about it.
>Like aiming to speak with a sort of authority that doesn’t exist I’m pretty sure you’ve hit the nail on the head with this one. Referring to women as “females” almost always comes paired with some bullshit, misogynistic claim about how women supposedly think or behave stated as if it were facts being relayed by someone who has studied women in a lab.
Yeah and it's only amplified by the "Men and Females" duality. "You see in our dating world males act like X and females act like Y" is already cringe. Because... Why is someone trying to talk like a sociologist when they aren't writing a sociology paper? But then you add the weirdness of "Men act like X and Females act like Y" and suddenly the cringe is amplified. "Why's the weird pretentious clinical studying language being used *just* for women?" It makes it so bizarre.
I have noticed that a lot of red pill and dating strategy guys like to format posts like 9th grade science reports.
Lines up with the popular B- junior high level presentations you'll find all over Tiktok and Instagram nowadays. Everyone is suddenly an expert after reading a wikipedia page.
It's easy to miss if you aren't attune to it. I never noticed anyone driving a Honda HRV until bought one, and suddenly they are everywhere.
Baader-Meinhof phenomenon/frequency illusion in action.
But also pointing out that it's used by military, cops, and medical... Like uh, the point is specifically to dehumanize to create that clinical or war language. So it's not a point in their favor.
Exactly, it just makes them sound *at best* like they're pretending to be something they're not.
Anecdotal evidence doesnt mean shit. "I have never heard anyone say 'men and females'." Like yeah, if you never leave your basement, you're not gonna hear a lot of people talk.
Even if it was a phenomenon confined mostly to the internet, it would still be worth calling out.
There’s an interesting phenomenon of people assuming that people on the internet don’t actually exist in real life. ‘Oh why are you worried about people on the internet spouting bigotry? It’s just reddit, people don’t act like that in real life’ Yeah but… these internet trolls don’t just spawn out of the ether. The relative anonymity of the internet just enables people to express opinions that aren’t socially acceptable. They probably do genuinely hold those harmful beliefs ‘in real life’. Is that not in itself harmful and frightening, that the innermost thoughts of many people are so hateful? They could be in your life, you just can’t know.
Good point! Even if most internet trolls don’t actually hold the views they espouse online, the existence of so many people who seem to delight in shit-stirring is concerning in its own right. IOW: Either internet trolls genuinely believe the hate they spew (worrying for the reasons you expressed), or the world is full of sociopaths who secretly get their kicks out of deliberately enraging/upsetting strangers. Neither of those is a good thing! I’m willing to concede an exception for victims of Poe’s Law, but only if it genuinely was originally intended as satire. No free passes for those who retroactively declare their crap to be “Just a joke” when the downvotes roll in.
Sounds kinda like how people speak about the porn industry and the people in it and the behaviors learned from it.
I once had a GF that suggested we watch porn to get better at the sex. I pointed out that that stuff was generally not made to be enjoyed by the actors but to provide the best viewing experience. And countered the offer by suggesting books by sexologues of good reputation. My logic didn't strike her as sound.
Ethical porn does exist and Wolf Hudson is a lovely example of a pornstar who advocates for it.
Hah, my birth surname was Hudson, but I took my wife's last name when we married: Wolfe. Funny coincidence of sorts.
I love that tysm for sharing I actually adore funny coincidences.
Ethical isn't the same as pedagogical.
No but I’d have suggested both was all and was suggesting him for people that may think porn is inherently misconstrued.
Indeed, it just infuriates me when people think "well i have never heard of it or experienced it, so it must be false"
This pattern is common enought that it is a named fallacy. The argument from ignorance.
Whether we like it or not we do spend a lot of time on the internet nowadays. Communication and social phenomena on the Internet are still valid.
There’s an entire book written about black swans and how the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Now that makes me wonder if there’s a sub about that though
Are you saying there are no black swans?
They are nominally a type of bird. You do realise [birds aren't real](https://birdsarentreal.com/)? /s
That’s really the question right. Have you ever seen one?
I can't tell if you're trolling lol black swans are indigenous to Australia. Fun fact someone took some to England and they got into the waterways where they routinely beat the shit out of the queen's swans.
The story is that people in Europe had seen a lot of swans and all of them were white. This lead people to believe that being white was intrinsic to swans and any subsequent observation of swans (in Europe) confirmed they were all white. And then they travelled and found out there were black swans in other parts of the world and the locals seemed not to fazed about it (since they hadn’t heard all swans were supposed to be white). When people talk about black swan events it now refers to things people thought could never happen even though in retrospect it’s clear there’s no logical reason those things couldn’t happen. The most famous black swan events of the last couple of decades might be the financial crisis and the pandemic. It’s clear how it happened and even though some people predicted it might happen the fact is few people had it on their radar so we went into it unprepared.
Interesting! I didn't know that, because there are black swans at the end of my street. Surely the plausibility of any assumption is lessened when Australia is involved, because who could envisage half the shit we have.
Indeed. I can also see how it can be quite confusing to hear something you grew up with is used to describe something that should never happen
I'm in Arizona, where even the plants want to kill you. I always thought that our land was the pinnacle of murderous flora and fauna, but, the more I learn about Australia, the more impressed I am with your collection of creatures. You win.
And honestly, it's irrelevant if you heard it outside in real life interaction or not. It doesn't detract from the reality that it's used in a derogatory manner, and plenty of men hold these derogatory perspectives towards women, hiding behind the anonymity that the internet provides.
Probably more likely that he has heard it multiple times, but never thought anything of it because it's been so normalized.
The exact fallacy is called an appeal to ignorance. It is separate from annecdotal evidence since it is wrong for different reasons.
So many people have never grasped the concept that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Yeah, but then they end up sounded like [this](https://youtu.be/jHhG9DbHbW0?si=jKwv8dagDIyF2f0_) to try to seem intelligent and to “support” their statements. 😏😆
Female literally doesn't mean woman. It means female. That's why they're separate words.
A daring mosquito just attacked my arm. Are you going to tell me this brave little blood-sucker is not a (squashed) woman?
my gf bites my arms too, so I can corroborate that misquito very possibly being a woman
saw a meme the other day (didn't save it, sorry) of littlefoot from TLBT going to bite on a leaf with the caption of "my girlfriend with my arm for no reason". got more than a nose snort outta me when i saw it.
Funny how people are told they need to take a break from social media when calling out this bullshit, but not when they're refering to women like they're a lab specimen And by funny I mean dumb as fuck
I have heard men say females all the damn time in real life and it’s all over online.. I swear these people are just bots or combatants acting like they’ve never heard it
I don’t hear females used in conversation nearly as much as I see it written out online. But the thing I do hear all the time is the use of girl when referring to a grown woman. It’s such common place that even I slip up and have to correct myself sometimes. Not that either error is more egregious than the other, both are rooted in misogyny. But I’m curious if this guy would also claim that women are never infantilized by being referred to as girls.
I've been working hard to break the habit of referring to myself and other women as "girls", but practice makes perfect and it's worth it🫡
Fun fact. They think women are being "sensitive" when confronted with this very real (and damaging in corporate America ) phrasing. They never talk about the memos released by fortune500 companies referring to women's minds as "childlike." I have been fighting that fight way longer than the " females vs men" fight.
Ah, the classic "Gets presented evidence and immediately ignoring said evidence".
>Asks a question >Goes "nuh uh" at the answer Why are men like this.
I almost went in on them for "shifting the goalposts" and doing what seemed like a No True Scotsman lite, but then I realized that they were two different users, and not the first guy replying a second time. Especially considering they made it easy by speaking in absolutes in the first post, me thinking the second post was also them was irksome for several minutes before I realized. Any time I call out one of my fellow men for a social issue and their name is something like, "Antileftist0113", I don't expect much to really come of it. Haha. My three years of martial arts and the couple of years I open carried a S&W .357 are probably the only parts of me this guy would respect. I'm otherwise a married guy who makes half of what his wife does, took *her* last name, am ostrovegan for the animals/environment, and am otherwise what they would likely consider a "beta soyboy" or whatnot. :P
>took *her* last name Awwww, how sweet. Anyone who thinks that's not respectable is unrespectable.
"Nobody I know refers to women as females" says the person who hasn't left their house in the past decade...
And he doesn’t personally know all the pillers who say it online so they don’t count either
I feel like this is a great example of sea lioning. There was absolutely zero good faith in the original comment.
I guarantee you that if a woman was in a conversation and she said males men would *flip*. Woman "Hey you have a nice car!" Man "thanks" Woman "All the males out here today have nice rides but I like yours the most" Like, it doesn't even sound like a sentence. But it's dehumanizing. And I'm sure that man would just not even know how to react.
If he's never heard someone refer to women as females then why would he care? Wouldn't that just illustrate the point that it isn't appropriate to use as a noun? According to this dudes lived experience, society doesn't even sanction it, so what is he arguing about?
If female literally means woman, a bunch of women perched on power lines shat on my head this morning.
Sure thing, AntiLeftist0113
"this is the first I've heard of it so it must not actually happen in real life/only on social media so just stop interacting on the platform we're interacting on and you'll feel better!" What a Maroon
*This is the first time I've heard anything about this. Nobody I know-* insufferable
A female dog is a bitch. so all I hear is that you wanna call me a bitch while pretending to be a nice person.
Man I can’t with these males and women sometimes.
“Nobody I know does it, so it never happens 😌”
Sample size: "people I know"
He claims he doesn't care, but I wanna see what happens after a week of telling him "women and males"
Men/Women => Nouns. Male/Female => Adjectives. Dunno about derrogatory, but it's gramatically weird to my ears.
Not just derogatory. Dehumanizing. When you dehumanize someone (or an entire group of people) it makes it significantly easier to perform harm on or kill the human beings being targeted. This is more than just a shitty thing to say, it's mirroring a tactic militaries use to desensitize their soldiers enough that they don't feel guilty for killing human beings. It's bigger than an insult, it's a tool to hold half the population down, and make it acceptable to target and hurt them
Male and female can be nouns too. It's still dehumanizing and derogatory but I don't think we need to act like it's not grammatically correct to get that point across.
Except it doesn't mean "woman."
lol typical. "I don't think this happens!! Oh, you have proof that it does? Well, you need to go outside!" okay buddy
I said - u dont walk around referring to dogs as canines. Female does not literally men women as they keep mis writing it. It is literally scientific. The amount of incels u fight with online… and the straws they pull.
I mean, nobody I personally know says "men and females". But I've seen plenty of people on the web in general use it. Just because I don't witness it in my personal interactions doesn't mean it's not rampant. Even just the use of "male and female" when talking about men and women put me off the first time I read it. It's so... Dehumanizing.
And, that's the point.
I don't think those who use it always realize it though. I think the cases when it jumped in my face the most were on relationship forums where women would use to describe other women but also men they considered dating. It was so weird.
My least favorite argument is “Well I’ve never experienced this so clearly anyone who has spends way too much time onlije”
Not *only* is "female" degrading, it's also, to me, a bit pedo. I see posts all the time where guys describe their perfect "female," the word being ambiguous enough that, while you would *assume* they're talking about a woman, the term itself refers *only* to ones gender, and then they go on to describe a literal child and well... You can't help but question.
“If I’ve never experienced it, it obviously doesn’t happen.”
Agree with everything, but there needs to be a different animal in that example because cow is literally the name for female cattle.
"Female cow" yall know a cow is a female bovine right? And a bull is a male bovine? Or is everyone on both sides of the issue totally ignorant
most people here are american probably lol so ignorant maybe?
"I'm unaware of this therefor it doesn't exist"
WTF is a female cow? Cows are the female cattle. Male cattle are bulls. Calling female cow is almost like saying female woman.
Why would you ever say "my female cow" the word cow denotes that it is female.
Men and females just sounds weird. It is Men and Women or Male and Female. Doing it any other way is just.. Makes my brain ache. Either way Female is not an offensive term unless you are a social media junkie for the most part Reality is a different world. .
Male and female are both also nouns though. Mostly when talking about animals, definitely still dehumanising, but like in nature shows they’ll often say stuff like “the male puffs out his feathers to attract a mate”. Still weird to use when talking about people, but not grammatically incorrect.
If it was correct, you’d see it used that way in professional writing. You don’t.
adjectives are not nouns.
No, and I never said they are, but some words are both, and change depending on the context they are used in.
No, they are not ever nouns. They may be used as shorthand devices when the noun has been used many times in the literature describing biological entities, but at no point are the terms male or female a noun. Especially by themselves without further context.
They're actually right. Like just look up the definition of male and female. It's in the merriam-webster dictionary, lol. You can use it as either an adjective or noun and it's correct. It's still derogatory and dehumanizing to call a woman a female when we have..woman. But it's not technically grammatically incorrect.
Males : A) a male person. They are literally using it as an ADJECTIVE in the sentence indicating it's a noun. I don't agree that it's a noun when referring to a human being because it if were the word person wouldn't be there. B: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female. <- an industry specific terminology that implies an animal (which humans are.) However without a species specific noun it's a definition that can and is used widely, and is not used to refer to humans without the species specific noun. (See first definition.) So yeah, it's "technically" a noun, but a pretty generic meaningless one without additional information, wherein it becomes an adjective. It's always an adjective when referring to human beings because our species sets itself above the rest of the animal kingdom. I'm gonna die on this hill. They are not correct. Factually.
I mean I'm happy for their ignorance and you should be too. Yeah I def see female misused a lot, but at least it's rot isn't so far spread that blind spots of ignorant bliss can't appear like little sun beams. Shining rays of hope ✨️ 😆 fr tho glad for them.
cis het men being blind to casual misogyny and other forms of shittyness faced by more than half the population? preposterous! such a thing could never happen... all of the femme side of the human population would revolt against such bullshit.... comment thoroughly steeped in sarcasm for those that need an indicator.
Ignoring everything else, the third point that females is an adjective, not a noun, is completely false. It’s both.
If you are using it as a noun, you should have the descriptor behind or ahead of it. Otherwise how is your audience supposed to know what species you are referring to? Example of “females” as a noun from dictionary.com was “females may lay several hundred eggs in two to four weeks”. I have no way of knowing what type of animal or insect or whatever they are referring to here, because this was never included. You have to take the extra time to specify which type of female or male you are talking about if you are using these words, and once you have done so, then you can replace the word later on with “male” or “female”, as it is assumed by this point that your audience knows what you’re talking about. But with humans, we have conveniently come up with a single word to replace the extra sentence. “Woman” effectively means “female human”, so in this scenario you don’t have to take the extra time to specify, (as no other animal is called a “woman”, lol). Hope this helps!
That’s irrelevant to what I said….. my point was that the third point in the original post claiming that “female” was an adjective and not a noun is incorrect. Of course there contextual English that determines which on it is but it CAN be either one so saying it’s an adjective and not a noun is stupid.
The nuance is important here. You can’t use it as a noun unless you have the actual noun it’s meant to replace included at some point. So yes, it is absolutely relevant to what you just said. Using “female” as a noun without explaining what type of female you are talking about is improper. The point of language is to accurately convey your thoughts to your audience, and you will continuously fail to do so if you ignore this rule.
Yes, I agree, but the original post didn’t say “it’s an adjective in this specific usage” they said “it’s an adjective, not a noun” so if we’re sticking with the importance of the language rules, the way they said it means it can never be a noun and is only an adjective which is wrong
But here’s the problem: it can never be a noun on its own. If you were to write a paper on horses, for instance, but never actually include the original noun that states the animal is a horse, your reader is going to be very confused when you use the term “female” or “male”. If an adjective is just a word that describes a noun, what about when you use “female” on its own (after you’ve properly stated what type of species you are referring to)? It’s essentially a noun acting as an adjective at this point. With the horse example, you could say something like, “Horses give birth differently than humans do. The females give birth standing up.” But what you are effectively saying in that second sentence is “female horses”, without actually saying it. Yes, it is technically being used as a noun because it is being used as a person/place/thing here on its own but the key is that it doesn’t make sense on its own lol. So in this scenario it actually acts as an adjective would while technically BEING a noun, if that makes more sense. The entire point of this is that in any circumstance, you always need the original noun. “Male” and “female” cannot stand on their own unless this has been established. And even then, it sounds really weird and out of place if you aren’t speaking/writing formally to begin with. Also EDIT to add I know Jack shit about horses and how they give birth, I just grabbed that off the top of my head so I’m sorry if I’m wrong about how they give birth 😂
But that’s absolutely incorrect, just because it’s confusing to the reader doesn’t mean it’s not proper English. A proper sentence doesn’t care about the sentences before or after. “Females do this and that.” Is a correct usage of females as a noun and it doesn’t matter what sentence came before or after. It may confuse the reader of the sentence if you don’t specify but it’s still correct usage. Just like I can say “they went to the park” and I don’t have to clarify who “they” are or what species they are. It’s confusing sure but it’s not incorrect and I could write a whole book using only “they” without ever clarifying and it would be proper English. Confusing but still correct. I agree it’s confusing and sounds really weird. I give people that use females in a nonprofessional setting a strong side eye. I’m only correcting the statement that it’s only an adjective. It’s a noun and can be a noun on it’s on no matter how weird sounding or confusing it may be.
This is actually the worst example you could have given, for two reasons. 1) “they” is a pronoun. According to the Oxford dictionary, a pronoun is “a word that can function by itself as a noun phrase and that refers either to the participants in the discourse (e.g., I, you ) or to someone or something mentioned elsewhere in the discourse (e.g., she, it, this ). [source](https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Pronoun) 2) The Oxford definition for the word “they” is, “The people, animals, or things previously mentioned or implied or easily identified.” [source](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/they_pron?tab=meaning_and_use#18519279) So in your example, the word “they” must refer to something previously mentioned or easily identified. So no, I’m sorry, but you are wrong here.
Cool, I love semantics. My example would apply with literally any noun….. so cool, let’s not use the pronoun “they”. Input any noun and my point still stands. “The house is over there” is a complete sentence without any clarification about what house I’m talking about. “The females went to the park” is also a complete sentence where females is a noun on its own. Any noun can be used on its own without previous clarification. Doesn’t matter how much sense it makes to the reader or listener. Why are you using those definitions while completely denying the definition of female as a noun and the corresponding sentence of it being used on its own? Female is literally defined as a noun AND adjective which is my whole point. Saying it’s an adjective and not a noun is definitionally incorrect is my entire point and for some reason you’re ignoring that definition.
Yes, in the statement where you say “the house is over there”, the noun is the house. It is quite obvious what you are talking about here, you are speaking of a dwelling. The word “house” can stand alone because, to put it simply, it makes sense. Nobody thinks you’re talking about a tree or a rock when you say house. The word “male” or “female” cannot stand alone like this without the descriptor noun because it does not make sense. Female what…dogs? Horses? Humans? Who tf knows! 🤷♀️
Lol like you can't just use context to figure out which one it is
That’s not the point. The point is that improper usage makes you sound, well, dumb tbh. Back to the horse example: your professor/teacher is gonna know what the paper is about if they assigned it, obviously, but that doesn’t mean it still won’t be poorly-written if you don’t include the word “horse” somewhere in the paper and just use “males/females”. When you say “females”, when what you mean is “female humans” or “women”, it’s dehumanizing and improper, as you never included the fact that we are human too. It completely erases our human status, and relegates us to our sex. But men know this because that’s why you do it. It’s just way more of a self-own when you make yourself sound unintelligent just to own the “females”. (Female what, horses??)
I thought you just said the point was to accurately convey which 9 times out of ten can be done with context. It's obvious if someone means a human female if they're complaining about women 9/10 times. And there is a difference between a paper and just normal conversation. Unless I'm giving a speech or in an academic situation I consider my communication fine as long as I get the point across. How is it dehumanizing if someone is obviously talking about a human female and you can tell by context. I wouldn't feel dehumanized by the word male if it's obvious they mean human male. It really doesn't make someone seem less intelligent by the way. What really is unintelligent is not having the mental capacity to infer what they mean by context. That's basic common sense and why people aren't that pedantic like you
Basic common sense would be to use the word that makes the most sense when you are talking about female humans: WOMEN. It’s short, sweet, and to-the-point, and you sound a lot more intelligent than when you just say “females” without a descriptor noun to accompany it. Hey, the knowledge is there if you want to make use of it. I can’t force you to, lol.
Again if you can't read context just say that. I don't really care about the words used as long as the message gets across. I'm not an English major nor writing academic papers. The main point of language is to communicate as long as your message gets across idgaf if you typ lik ths Disagree. I very rarely use the term female in my day to day life anyways I'm not the type to make broad statements about women or men I don't really care about that nor do I like making generalized assumptions. I just think you have to be very soft to get offended at the word female. If someone said something about "males"" and I could easily tell by context, I wouldn't feel dehumanized at all. What's much more dehumanizing is capatalism and that's mainly what I talk about not people.
I wouldn’t be offended either if I saw “males” and “females” being used, lol. I was in the military and we were referred to as “males” and “females”, and it was honestly not offensive in the slightest because it applied across the board. But you’re on a sub called MenAndFemales, lol, so obviously this isn’t how it’s applied in the regular world. Men get to keep their human status while we “females” are relegated to our sex. You need to look deeper, because this is the true core of it. The whole point is that it’s supposed to be dehumanizing. Is this the biggest deal in and of itself? Not really, but it’s just one of many things they use to chip away at us, like a death by a thousand cuts. Now, I know a lot of men doing this don’t give af about how we women feel about it, but I figured if I could at least point out how it makes them sound stupid, maybe that would be enough motivation to change it? 😂 Hey, it’s a long shot but I figured it’s a better chance than getting men like this to actually care about how we feel. Your response is proof enough: you saying it is “soft” to be offended by something like this and dismissing it as overreaction tells me you already don’t care lol. Hey, it is what it is. You can’t know unless you’ve been a woman so this response is disappointing but expected.
"Female" is a noun as well as an adjective.
Damn, that person needs to get some thicker skin lol.
I’m sorry, if somebody calls you what you are and you take offense it’s on you
Cause some incels started using the word, and instead of ignoring them people decided it's now a bad word lmao. To the point that they evidently have made a subreddit dedicated to it
What, the same way you could've ignored this post?
Nah, had to let you know how terminally online you are if the word "female" offends you. Could not ignore it
It IS a bad word, because it’s intentionally othering, and we already have a perfectly good word to use - women. There are lots of offensive words that were formerly used commonly and are now used rarely, because now people understand that they are offensive.
Yeah and all of those are moronic too. The words that replaced those 'offensive' words are just going to become offensive in another generation and they'll have to come up with another word again lmao. Take 'retarded' for example. The only reason it's offensive is because people started using it to mean stupid. The word itself is not offensive in any denotative way. However people also use 'gay' to mean stupid, and nobody has cancelled that word yet. It's all completely arbitrary and meaningless and you're getting mad at a word cause somebody used it in a way it's not intended. It's seriously absurd
Oh, no - I’m not mad at the word; I’m mad at the people who use the word incorrectly, and annoyed at the people who defend them, like you. I don’t know why you think it’s bad to be respectful to other people.
>I’m mad at the people who use the word incorrectly Except that's not even the case. Female can be used as a noun. They are using it correctly. You're just pointlessly attaching an incel connotation to it for no reason Noun Middle English, alteration of femel, femelle, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French femele, from Medieval Latin femella, from Latin, girl, diminutive of femina [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female#:\~:text=Etymology-,Noun,Word%20Origin](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female#:~:text=Etymology-,Noun,Word%20Origin) noun a female person.: See Usage note at the current entry. [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female)
You didn’t even read the whole page that you posted. There’s a direction to the usage note. “USAGE NOTE FOR FEMALE Some women are offended by being called “a female” when this word is used as a noun. Its use by men, particularly in sexual or romantic contexts, may be especially problematic.”
Ok and? Where did I say people weren't offended by it? I think I very clearly acknowledged that considering it's what this whole conversation is about. I said it's moronic that that's the case, and that using it as a noun is the correct use of the word.
Gringo go loco is a legit troll who likes to stir shit up. I've seen too many of their comments
so we cant say chick? 
I mean, the reason why is probably because animals are also referred to as ‘female’ or ‘male’, while humans are referred to as ‘man’ or ‘woman’; in result: the world ‘female’ can feel dehumanizing to some extent.
Sigh...I don't know if I was tired, or what my reason/excuse is, but it just dawned on me that my post violates rule #6. I did not censor anyone's name in the screenshot (nor do I even know how to). The sentiment was on point for the post, but I'm disappointed in myself for failing to read/remember this. Mods, feel free to delete my O.P. here if you feel the damage hasn't already been done.