this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
246 points (88.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43952 readers
908 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am not a native English speaker and I have sometimes referred to people as male and female (as that is what I have been taught) but I have received some backlash in some cases, especially for the word "female", is there some negative thought in the word which I am unaware of?

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, if it's not appropriate I have no problem to delete it ^^

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de 364 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I feel like a lot of answers here are dancing around why people find it offensive without really addressing it.

As an adjective "female" is completely fine to distinguish between genders when applied to humans. As in "a female athlete" or when a form asks you to select "male" or "female" (ideally with additional options "diverse" and "prefer not to answer").

Where it's problematic is when it's used as a noun. In English "a male" and "a female" is almost exclusively reserved for animals. For humans we have "a man" and "a woman". Calling a person "a female" is often considered offensive because it carries the implication of women being either animals, property or at least so extremely different from the speaker that they don't consider them equal. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the trend of calling women "females" is popular with self-proclaimed "nice guys" who blame women for not wanting to date them when in reality it's their own behavior (for example calling women "females") that drives potential partners away.

So in itself, the word "female" is just as valid as "male" and in some contexts definitely the right word to use but the way it has been used gives it a certain negative connotation.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 53 points 8 months ago (21 children)

In English “a male” and “a female” is almost exclusively reserved for animals.

But also important to remember that quite a bunch of people are note native speakers without the feeling for finer distinctions in meaning. Like for me, since I learned english mostly in a scientific setting, those words habe little negative connotation on their own. They became negative co-notated through the use of misogynistic communities.

[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de 49 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't judge someone who doesn't know better. I'm not a native speaker myself. I just wanted to clarify as good as I can because it seems like OP wants to make an honest effort to use it correctly.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

quite a bunch

Speaking of non-native speakers. This is a phrase that's clear enough and makes complete sense, but does come across as quite clunky and unnatural to a native English speaker. I couldn't articulate why exactly, but "a bunch" doesn't really take "quite" quite as well as some other similar words. "Quite a few", or "a bunch" (without the quite) would have worked better here. Or just "many", which is probably what I would have gone with.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think it's German slipping in. Thanks for feedback.

[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago

This might be a regional thing. For reference I grew up in Oklahoma and "quite a bunch" seems natural and familiar. In British English quite has the opposite meaning so I could see why it wouldn't make sense in that context. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't sound right to other Americans due to regional linguistic differences.

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago

Yeah, seems like a more recent thing. Like if there were a bunch of varying ages then I'd just go males or females, but because of how meanings change I just don't use it anymore to not even risk the chance of offending someone. If they find it offensive than who am I to say it isn't. So I just removed it from my vocab outside of science, since I don't want to deal with the drama.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 21 points 8 months ago

Great explanation! Spot on.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think you got this mostly dead on but I don't know about it being because anyone thinks women are animals. I do believe the part you wrote about it being about difference/distance is correct though. In fact I think cops refer to suspects as male or female for the same reason. Man and woman sound nothing alike and are easier to say, so there must be some reason not to use those words. I think they say male or female to create distance between them, and not a person, but a gendered wrongdoer. That way they can apply any and all force without feeling as bad about it

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This one is interesting because in the military it was pretty much the norm to use male or female for everyone, but in that case it wasn’t so much about distance as minimizing differences, as in everyone is a soldier or airmen first (sort of like comrade). I wonder if some of the police use comes from the relatively high number of veterans or the wannabe military stuff that the police have, or if they feel like it seems more professional.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

If you're building a military, de-individualization makes sense and builds cohesion. If you're building a society or a relationship, de-individualization is gross and abusive when used with intent.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Well, the assholes that use ‘female’ like op described think we’re shoes, locks, purses, sandwiches, androids…

Animal would be a step up, really. At least that’s something that’s alive.

[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

::: spoiler Discussion of offensive racial language

There's a similar distinction with "black" in regards to race. Referring to someone as a black person or people as black folks is largely acceptable. Referring to someone as a "black" or people as "blacks" on the other hand sounds old fashioned at best and actively dehumanizing at worst.

[–] aeharding@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Voyager has spoilers! It’s not in the markdown toolbar yet but if you know the syntax it works

::: spoiler spoiler goes here

Hi there

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Spoilers…

Purple dev highlighting… share as image, optional watermark…

🤗

[–] Bronco1676@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

Ooh I found it a bit confusing as I collapse comments very often, and it looked similar to it

[–] kemsat@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Male & female are sexes, not genders.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Can you explain the difference? Aren't genders another way of saying their biological sex?

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

No. Gender is largely a social construct based on psychological, cultural, and behavioral mores, although given that there are differences in the brain between Trans and Cis people of the same biological sex, there does appear to be something of a biological component.

Biological sex is tied entirely to the genome, and may or may not match a person’s gender.

[–] PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not OP, but please, any answer you get, including mine, research for yourself. Most will just push their own opinion as fact. Or pass off someone else's opinion as fact.

In many cultures around the world, these terms are interchangeable. In the US, they were (and for many/most, still are) the same thing until not too long ago. When people were doing gender reveal parties 20 years ago, no one was correcting them that's it's a "sex reveal not gender reveal".

The modern usage of "gender" didn't exist until the 1950s, popularized by John Money, and if you want to research that deviant pervert, be my guest.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Interesting ty for your input

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In any society where male roles and female roles differ (e.g. fathers play ball with their kids; mothers teach their kids to sew), male and female are also genders in addition to being sexes. What else would you call these genders?

[–] kemsat@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Gender’s not something I care about (social roles given to sexes). Honestly, I think it’s a worthless convention & conversation.

Sex is just what we call our roles in the creation of life. One sex carries the baby, the other causes the baby. This cannot be changed to the other. A female, regardless of their precious feelings & conscious identity, is the one that becomes pregnant. The male, even if he’s trans, is the one that causes the pregnancy.

When I ask for someone’s sex, I couldn’t care less about how they feel or what pronouns they’d like to be called by. I’m literally not referring to their consciousness, just what type of meat robot that consciousness is in.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] kemsat@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

No. Sex is just about biology. Sex is just about which part you play in the creation of life: do you carry the offspring or not? If yes, you are female. Gender is some dumb shit we made up.

[–] OhmsLawn@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Tangentially to the discussion at hand, I think what we're running into with females being used in social-level discourse is the hunt for an inoffensive way to describe a potential mate, and to differentiate that word from the more general word.

When I was a kid, chick and all the other overtly misogynistic terms were going out of fashion. Later girls had some time in the spotlight, now it's females.

One group is looking for a way to politely describe a concept that the other considers inherently inappropriate or offensive.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't think females has ever been used by males to describe a potential partner of the opposite sex, except for groups of males that are notorious for their misogyny. While yeah there's been a bunch of different terms tried over the decades women was always on the table. It's kinda telling that it's been uncomfortable for some males for so long, especially since it's the easiest choice.