A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
"Do you regularly watch videos by Jordan Peterson?" kinda needs to become one of those before-first-date screening questions.
either that or: ben shapiro, or joe roegan videos.
Very direct. They could lie about it. Better to ask conceptually I think.
Occasionally my partner does or says some things that remind me of the “manosphere” aka 4chan neckbeards.
And when it happens, we talk about it. I don’t pretend or let it go as “he doesn’t mean it” or “he doesn’t know what he’s saying”. I don’t get mad and he doesn’t get mad. We have an adult discussion and I’m careful not to talk down to him.
A perfect example was that he sometimes says “females” when he means “women”. I explain that it’s not a swear word but it’s still derogatory. I explain why. Once I did, he understood and stopped doing it.
It doesn’t have to be a big deal! Communication is key!
it’s still derogatory
It logically isn't. While you think that, and anyone spending their future with you should mind it, it doesn't make it true.
It is if you say “man” and “female” instead of “male” and “female”. While it can be a noun, it’s mainly used as an adjective to describe sex.
It’s like saying “A black owns the shop.” Instead of “A black man owns the shop.”
Notice how calling someone “a black” is kinda icky?
Language isn’t always about logic. Discussing things in terms of male/female is fine in many contexts but is often done when discussing science or medical topics. Ex: the male pelvis has a different, narrower shape than the female pelvis. It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
In daily life, most people use men/women for non-scientific discourse. The women’s restroom. A group of men at the restaurant. Etc.
But here’s the thing. Male/female are used for any species (a male beetle), but man/woman are only used for humans.
Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females because it can be dehumanizing to women. When you say female you could be talking about an insect, but a man is human. It’s a succinct example of their philosophy. That’s why people consider it derogatory.
I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language. I think we also understand the concept of twisting words, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.
The claim is the word itself is derogatory. It's an argument roughly of the form:
- Someone mentioned female humans.
- They used the noun "female".
- The noun "female" is derogatory.
- Therefore, their statement (regardless of message) is derogatory.
These look like errors of reasoning: a persuasive definition (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy. While it can be used in a derogatory way, that's not the general, conventional meaning.
Language isn’t always about logic.
Yet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious) logic language doesn't follow, either. Language does follow a standard (of sorts): convention. By that standard, the claim is false.
Natural language gains conventional meaning through collective choices of the language community. This general acceptance is reflected in responses of native speakers (not niche online opinions who don't decide for the entire language community).
If (as reported) native speakers require frequent "correction" on a word's meaning, that indicates the proposed meaning isn't generally accepted. A longstanding definition (like "female" as a nonderogatory noun) holds more weight than a novel reinterpretation recognized by fewer.
If the "corrections" aren't, then what are they? At best, a proposed language change—an attempt to push the idea that the noun "female" is derogatory and change the way allies speak.
Is it a good proposal?
Would defining the noun "female" as derogatory weaken sexist ideologies? Unlikely: extremists like Andrew Tate wouldn't adjust their rhetoric because of a vocabulary. They wouldn't need to adjust a single word.
Is it just? Justice requires targeting wrongdoers narrowly—discrediting problematic messages, condemning extremist ideologies, promoting deradicalization. Blanket condemnation based on a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers. Antagonizing nonoffending parties alienates potential allies rather than foster change.
The result? A reductive purity test that challenges & penalizes allies instead of challenge wrongdoers. That is neither right nor beneficial.
Would making the noun "female" a dysphemism suggest to society that femaleness is wrong/taboo? That seems misguided.
Why that word? The assumption appears to be that usage by sexist extremists taints the word itself as if the word is to blame for their rhetoric. It's roughly an argument of the form
- Sexist extremists use the noun "female".
- Sexist extremists derogate female humans.
- Therefore, the noun "female" is inherently derogatory: anyone who uses it derogates female humans.
First, is premise 1 true: do figures like Andrew Tate even use the noun "female" disproportionately? I've only seen it among socially awkward individuals: not the same crowd.
More crucially, this argument is invalid: it's a genetic fallacy (guilt by association).
Thus, the proposal doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned: it's not good in any sense.
often done when discussing science or medical topics
or legal or technical or any context for impersonal abstraction. Such language has appeared in classified ads for apartment rentals: there's even a movie about it. Not derogatory. Context matters.
It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
While US policing has serious issues, this claim seems forced: impersonal terms are standard in legal settings.
Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females
Recalling an earlier question: do they?
Though interesting if so, that alone doesn't make the word in general derogatory. Nonderogatory instances are common (as you've identified). If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.
The use of a word in a derogatory message doesn't make it derogatory. That would require an unattainable level of purity (ie, never appear in derogatory messages) for nonderogatory words.
Your argument really shows the people who "consider it derogatory" misattribute an entire rhetoric to a word.
Final thought: humans don't need constant reassurance that they're humans to know they aren't being demeaned (unless they're painfully insecure).
tl;dr The claim that noun "female" is derogatory is false according to conventional meaning established by the language's community, corroborated by the frequent need to "correct" native speakers. Moreover, the claim doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned.
i don't know how could anyone watch Star Trek DS9 and still call women "females" like a Ferengi
serious answer: by consistently running and reading experiments that refer to male and female patients.
I try my best, but if I've read three-four papers in a day about a topic and all of them use male and female, probably gonna accidentally say female.
Funny you say that! He doesn’t do it anymore but I just sent him this meme from !tenforward@lemmy.world!
Communication is key
Sure, but honestly it sounds tiring if this kind of discussion is a recurring thing.
Toxic masculinity, feeding itself, empowered by the forces of capital who desires culture war above class war.
I love just saying "toxic masculinity" anywhere online, even if you're deep in the bowels of Lemmy, you will get a few reactionary turds who just see the term and lose all cognitive ability to think and mash the downvote button between heated breaths and tears streaming down their faces.
edit: and it continues, very predictable. Seriously guys, just be honest if the term makes you feel shit, you will find truth by pursuing those feelings and the questions around them, literally you will figure out why you're actually unhappy. Don't pull back, push through. Yes, I am provoking, and if it's provocation that has an effect on you, that's a HUGE sign that you can figure out a big truth about yourself and the world if you spend like, 30 minutes in uncomfortable silence asking yourself "why" about things and being painfully honest in your replies until you hit bedrock.
12% of young women support Tate? That's way higher than what I expected :( I can't understand why would any woman support someone who makes a fortune out of exploiting and abusing women openly
Tradwife content is on the rise for women as well, more and more young people are buying into this mythical simpler past as the world gets more complex, alienating and difficult.
mythical simple past but they wouldn't put down the fucking phone. anything but the phone!!
(regardless of gender)
These would be the "pick me's" whether they realize it or not
Women who are raised by misogynists but can't see past it. Women who have insecurities and can't see past it. They are latching on to the same order for security cuz it's all they know. Just a guess
Almost every survey will get 6-10% of people answering yes to the most extreme or batshit crazy option, no matter what.
Probably the main reason is that people are pissed off that they are being approached by survey takers and punish the survey for revenge.
And there are some batshit crazy people out there.
And then there are elections.
The Lizardman Constant.