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 ^^
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it’s German slipping in. Thanks for feedback.
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.
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.
Honestly, anyone who can speak a second language has a better grasp of what a noun and an adjective are than yer average English speaker. They’re just at risk of picking up colloquialisms from the manosphere, if they hang around in the wrong kinds of places.
Why?
Because you don’t have to have any formal education in your native language to speak it; you could blow off or fail English in school. But if you know a second language, there is a much higher chance that you had some formal education in the way of classes or books. You could still fail it or blow it off, but it seems like a reasonable assumption that you’d have a higher chance of having a grasp of grammar concepts.
sorry but I think you are misjudging just how much you learn both grammar and vocabulary from speaking a language natively and possibly misjudging how well education can teach someone a language
languages are these surprisingly complex and irregular things, which are way easier to learn by doing than by trying. often entering school you can already use tenses or grammatical structures that students learning English as a second language will struggle with a few years later in their educational journey, while you can spend that time unknowingly building up an even better subconscious understanding of the language.
Besides, from my experience, having basic Polish and extended English mind you, the tasks you are expected to do in the lessons of ones native language require a way higher degree of mastery than those in the second language of a pupil.
Also, it should be noted that non native speakers, or fluent speakers of multiple languages, can often borrow things from another language into English, either translating fraises literary (ex. once in a Russian year instead of once per blue moon) or using a unrelated word which happens to have a connection in the other language for other reasons (ex. castle and zipper both translate to “zamek” in Polish)
also mind that for a not insignificant number of people, though due to how more connected our world is today this has slightly decreased in the recent years, the level of English they ended up with from school is quite poor.
It sounds like you are confusing having an ability to speak and understand a language with having a formal education in a language, or just misunderstanding what I was saying. As you point out, people can already speak their native language (more or less) starting from the first day of grammar school. In fact, school isn’t necessary at all for a person to be a native speaker.
The children starting out in school don’t have a clue what a noun or verb is in the language. When someone reaches the point in school where they learn these grammatical concepts, they can do poorly at grasping them or forget about them after they’ve learned them and they are no longer part of the curriculum. They don’t actually need to know these things well (or at all) in order to speak, read, and write. High school students can write an essay in English that shows total mastery of the past progressive verb form without being able to tell you what it is.
On the other hand, when learning a second language (unless one does immersion), a person can’t rely on their native-speaker instinct and therefore will struggle to speak, read, and write if they don’t get the hang of formal grammatical terms to process their language input and compute the output.
reading through your comments I feel like the issue is of interpretation : what I , and possibly others , assumed you were trying to say is that non native English speakers have an advantage when trying to interpret the meaning of words , so sorry about that .
Thinking about it however , I believe I have been taught more about linguistics in my Polish lessons than in my English lessons . Unfortunately , as you have suspected many students will , I forgot a large portion of it , which I am especially unhappy about now that I am getting interested in recreational linguistics , I still remember some of it , with parts of speech (not to be confused with constituents (that joke would be quite a bit better in Polish as constituents literally means parts of (a) sentence in Polish)) being one of the most basic building blocks of language
You are an individual multilingual person from a specific place. I’m talking about how monolingual speakers on average would compare in their knowledge of formal grammatical terms to multilingual speakers, again, on average. In particular with English which has very little verb conjugation or case marking, it is very easy to ignore the class of a word if that’s the only language you learn about.
Maybe it’s only true of my aging generation but we never really encountered grammar until we were required to learn French.
Interesting, english is my third language - but I’m just bad at grammar and spelling in general. Definitely learned grammar in school - just forgot all about it.
something I’d like to add is that while you were not told the rules, you likely learned quite a few of them subconsciously.
personally to this day I struggle with what present perfect and others are, but I can use them easily. similarly I can’t say which grammatical case is which in my native language but I have no issue using them.
Of course. But understanding why calling women “females” is a big red flag is not about your intuitive grasp of the language. We dehumanise people by nounising their adjectives all the time. Are you epileptic, or an epileptic, or just a person with epilepsy?
It’s harder to explain to someone with a poor grasp of English grammar, that’s all. People who are fluent or near fluent because they grew up hearing and speaking a language will often struggle to explain something like this. People who had to learn the grammar consciously probably would not.
Only biologists and coppers need to use “female” as a noun. Everyone else can speak proper, like.
ah I must have misunderstood your comment , I think you may have replied to a different comment than you have intended to ?
also just as a side note , one counter example is many autistic people , myself included prefer the term autistic person rather than person with autism , though to be fair that is moreso an adjective but the way you worded that sentence suggests its also incorrect in some cases yeah um
also I have never met a single copper , really must open myself to new experiences /j :)
No, I was responding to your perfectly correct comment about the way we learn language, which is as little kids gradually working out the rules from exposure, not by being taught them.
We pick up on how language is used, not why it is used like that.
And that is exactly why some people with a condition like autism or epilepsy find attempts to rehumanise the language used to refer to them patronising or unhelpful. In my examples, “an epileptic” would be the dehumanising nounisation. And because of those attempts to rehumanise the language, people sometimes avoid the adjective too (in exactly the same way it’s happened with woman/female).
I mean you could argue americans aren’t native speakers either. But on the other hand, they did what the british wanted to but couldn’t, purge much of the french from their language.
I would argue that US-americans are native speakers of US-American english, which is a bit different from english spoken in england.
I know that this is popular especially among Latin American speakers, but the phrase “US-American” is very unidiomatic in English and makes you stand out quite significantly. In English, the term “American” means someone from the United States of America. It’s clear enough because “America” is always a shortened form of that country, while the large western hemisphere landmass is collectively “the Americas”, since the anglosphere almost universally uses a seven-continent model with North and South America being two continents (and with some more “enlightened” people preferring a six-continent model merging Eurasia—but you’ll rarely find a native English speaker who refers to “America” as a single continent).
You got it, I just happen to have quite some friends from south and middle America and since it was important to them and make sense to me I took it over in my vocabulary.
Fun fact (that I have heard and was not able to verify with a quick search so take this with a grain of salt): the English spoken in the US is closer to the way it was spoken in Britain in the 1700s. The gentry made an intentional change to their pronunciation in response to the rise of the middle class, which filtered down to the masses.
Great explanation! Spot on.
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
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.
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.
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.
Male & female are sexes, not genders.
Can you explain the difference? Aren’t genders another way of saying their biological sex?
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.
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.
Interesting ty for your input
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?
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.
Your response demonstrates why you’re not qualified to have an opinion on what is or isn’t a gender.
I’m qualified to know gender ≠ sex. Your opinion demonstrates why you’re delusional.
I was never disputing that, so I don’t see what what point you think you’re making.
What is the gender of a cis boy?
I guess the gender is “cis boy?” But I don’t care about gender. I’d consider gender a mental state. While sex is a physical state. Sex determines the part your body plays in biological sexual reproduction, under normal/usual/typical/common genetic circumstances. Aka you either get pregnant or you cause someone else to be pregnant.
Again, why the fuck does gender matter beyond an individual’s mental state? It’s literally a different matter from sex. Hence why trans is even a thing at all.
You’re hopeless.
deleted by creator
They’re both.
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.
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.
Voyager has spoilers! It’s not in the markdown toolbar yet but if you know the syntax it works
spoiler goes here
Hi there
Spoilers…
Purple dev highlighting… share as image, optional watermark…
🤗
Ooh I found it a bit confusing as I collapse comments very often, and it looked similar to it
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.
deleted by creator
And yet, they will dance around looking for anything else to say. It’s so bizarre!
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.