I sincerely mean this, but I feel bad for people that in my opinion are paranoid about some hidden agenda. If someone says something to me using language and words that I understand then I believe what they are saying is exactly what they are trying to convey to me. If they use a word in the dictionary that we all learned in grammar school, no additional definition is needed. I would hate to go through life constantly suspecting that what a person was clearly saying to me wasn’t “really” what they meant. Though I guess if a person’s start point is always focused on being “dehumanized” then they will use that filter to be suspect of everyone that they interact with. And I’m sure that this comment clearly shows that I don’t hate any group of people nor am I condescending to them will itself be viewed negatively.
So you refuse to understand anything more complex than the surface. How lost are you when you watch a movie? When Micheal Corleone says “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse” are you just like, “That’s pretty nice of him to offer a business deal that’s so favorable he’ll accept it, I thought these guys were rivals.”
Missing the entire point dude. No one is being paranoid about an agenda. That would suggest that people are being unreasonable in their assumption about you using females as a term for women. But about 95% of the time any woman hears themselves being called a “female” it’s some incel crap and they’re about to be talked down to and dehumanized which is the entire point of calling them female.
And this isn’t meant for you to take offense to and become defensive. We get you didn’t mean it that way or whatever. People here are trying to help you not sound like an incel or red pill douchebag. If you want to continue using that word and have people make incorrect assumptions about you, go for it.
IMHO “males” is also dehumanising, but I digress. When used in the derogatory sense “females” is often beside “men,” implying that women are inferior to men. It’s become somewhat of a “dog-whistle,” which is a form of coded language that the speaker uses to imply a different message to a specific audience (usually some sort of bigotry) while maintaining plausable deniability. Someone may purposely use “females” to refer to women to indicate their own misogyny to people who share their beliefs, and it is intentially ambiguous to prevent women who pick up on it from calling it out. Tmk “males” isn’t commonly loaded in the same way
Because there isn’t a large, surprisingly homogeneous group of midandrists frequently using the term “males” while promoting unhinged criticism of men.
The problem is incels use female to dehumanize and reduce women. That is where its use is popularized from and i can tell you that 95+% of the time i hear someone use female to describe a woman, outside of a clinical setting or paper, they are an incel. Some people like you may not be aware, or care, that this is how it is typically used but that doesn’t make it any less offensive. That isn’t someone being “paranoid” and starting with thinking things are dehumanizing. It is -literally- how the term was intended to be used in the context you’re using it.
Imagine going up to someone and calling them an derogatory term and then telling them they are just being paranoid for being offended. If you don’t see the problem in that then i hope you can reflect on that and what this says about you.
I am totally UNAWARE of what you are describing. If I actually understood the point that you were making I wouldn’t think those who objected were paranoid.
Subtle changes in diction can sometimes dramatically impact how your message is interpreted. Language evolves, and words can take on additional (perfecly valid) meaning over time that are only added to a dictionary after being well-established. This can cause misunderstandings, as demonstrated in this thread. I’m sure you have no negative intentions, but to many it does not seem that way. The takeaway is that a small change in phrasing or words can decide how effectively your meaning is communicated, even if you are unaware of it.
Language is messy, and consists of mutual understandings of what a given “word” means. In this case, the hidden negative connotation in “females” is causing you to be misunderstood. I believe using “woman” instead would reflect what you meant without causing anybody to be uncomfortable. Best regards
Most times my judgment of dishonesty based on dogwhistles is accurate. This isn’t the bogeyman, it’s the norm for conversation, you’re the exception.
If someone says a slur to me, sure they might mean the best, but 95% of the time a slur means they’re being a dick. So I’m gonna tell good-meaning people to stop using that slur, or they’re gonna get grouped in with the 95% by someone at some point.
(Not saying that “female” is a slur, but 95% of the time someone uses it they way you did they’ve got some misogyny)
You can interpret words literally. However human organisms use literal interpretation and context to communicate meaning without saying it literally.
In the original comment saying MOST females won’t get the joke is incorrect in a literal interpretation.
Furthermore the use of “female” with this literal statement in MOST people’s interpretation is commonly associated with sexist (doesn’t have to be hate, just dislike in general) attitudes against women. (The quote “women, am I right?” Comes to mind as a similar sentiment.)
This interpretation is learnt by everyone whom exist outside of the internet and is learnt from society to prevent conflict and unwanted hate, there’s no need to feel paranoia about reading it when the literal text and common interpretation of the text reads as a degrading attack on MOST females. (The meme touch grass is intended for instances like this.)
I sincerely mean this, but I feel bad for people that in my opinion are paranoid about some hidden agenda. If someone says something to me using language and words that I understand then I believe what they are saying is exactly what they are trying to convey to me. If they use a word in the dictionary that we all learned in grammar school, no additional definition is needed. I would hate to go through life constantly suspecting that what a person was clearly saying to me wasn’t “really” what they meant. Though I guess if a person’s start point is always focused on being “dehumanized” then they will use that filter to be suspect of everyone that they interact with. And I’m sure that this comment clearly shows that I don’t hate any group of people nor am I condescending to them will itself be viewed negatively.
C’mon, you’re smarter than that
So you refuse to understand anything more complex than the surface. How lost are you when you watch a movie? When Micheal Corleone says “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse” are you just like, “That’s pretty nice of him to offer a business deal that’s so favorable he’ll accept it, I thought these guys were rivals.”
Missing the entire point dude. No one is being paranoid about an agenda. That would suggest that people are being unreasonable in their assumption about you using females as a term for women. But about 95% of the time any woman hears themselves being called a “female” it’s some incel crap and they’re about to be talked down to and dehumanized which is the entire point of calling them female.
And this isn’t meant for you to take offense to and become defensive. We get you didn’t mean it that way or whatever. People here are trying to help you not sound like an incel or red pill douchebag. If you want to continue using that word and have people make incorrect assumptions about you, go for it.
serious question. Why don’t males ever find it offensive to be called males?
Because males as a term had not picked up culturally loaded meaning from those who would exploit them.
Why aren’t males putting their keys between their fingers when they go out in the dark?
IMHO “males” is also dehumanising, but I digress. When used in the derogatory sense “females” is often beside “men,” implying that women are inferior to men. It’s become somewhat of a “dog-whistle,” which is a form of coded language that the speaker uses to imply a different message to a specific audience (usually some sort of bigotry) while maintaining plausable deniability. Someone may purposely use “females” to refer to women to indicate their own misogyny to people who share their beliefs, and it is intentially ambiguous to prevent women who pick up on it from calling it out. Tmk “males” isn’t commonly loaded in the same way
Because there isn’t a large, surprisingly homogeneous group of midandrists frequently using the term “males” while promoting unhinged criticism of men.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B32xNWM3eAk) because we get called worse things.
The problem is incels use female to dehumanize and reduce women. That is where its use is popularized from and i can tell you that 95+% of the time i hear someone use female to describe a woman, outside of a clinical setting or paper, they are an incel. Some people like you may not be aware, or care, that this is how it is typically used but that doesn’t make it any less offensive. That isn’t someone being “paranoid” and starting with thinking things are dehumanizing. It is -literally- how the term was intended to be used in the context you’re using it.
Imagine going up to someone and calling them an derogatory term and then telling them they are just being paranoid for being offended. If you don’t see the problem in that then i hope you can reflect on that and what this says about you.
I am totally UNAWARE of what you are describing. If I actually understood the point that you were making I wouldn’t think those who objected were paranoid.
Subtle changes in diction can sometimes dramatically impact how your message is interpreted. Language evolves, and words can take on additional (perfecly valid) meaning over time that are only added to a dictionary after being well-established. This can cause misunderstandings, as demonstrated in this thread. I’m sure you have no negative intentions, but to many it does not seem that way. The takeaway is that a small change in phrasing or words can decide how effectively your meaning is communicated, even if you are unaware of it. Language is messy, and consists of mutual understandings of what a given “word” means. In this case, the hidden negative connotation in “females” is causing you to be misunderstood. I believe using “woman” instead would reflect what you meant without causing anybody to be uncomfortable. Best regards
Most times my judgment of dishonesty based on dogwhistles is accurate. This isn’t the bogeyman, it’s the norm for conversation, you’re the exception.
If someone says a slur to me, sure they might mean the best, but 95% of the time a slur means they’re being a dick. So I’m gonna tell good-meaning people to stop using that slur, or they’re gonna get grouped in with the 95% by someone at some point.
(Not saying that “female” is a slur, but 95% of the time someone uses it they way you did they’ve got some misogyny)
You can interpret words literally. However human organisms use literal interpretation and context to communicate meaning without saying it literally. In the original comment saying MOST females won’t get the joke is incorrect in a literal interpretation. Furthermore the use of “female” with this literal statement in MOST people’s interpretation is commonly associated with sexist (doesn’t have to be hate, just dislike in general) attitudes against women. (The quote “women, am I right?” Comes to mind as a similar sentiment.) This interpretation is learnt by everyone whom exist outside of the internet and is learnt from society to prevent conflict and unwanted hate, there’s no need to feel paranoia about reading it when the literal text and common interpretation of the text reads as a degrading attack on MOST females. (The meme touch grass is intended for instances like this.)
Me when words have a context gained through their use by other people: