Comment on Dude read the rules of woman only community and decided to post anyway

• Acamon@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I don’t know what to else to say, the community describes itself as “women only” and he described it as being “female only”. You could (but probably shouldn’t) take it up with that community if you really feel their “women only” rule excludes girls. But I’m not sure I see how it excludes “ladies” which are generally considered a subset or synonym of “women”.

  To continue your point, it’s true that not every’ female’ is a woman, indeed not every female is human. You get female seahorses, penguins and even female plants (dioecious ants like asparagus or holly). But for most English speakers, in most situations, female is an adjective and not a noun. So, you might ‘have a female friend’ , but you’re not usually ‘friends with a female’.

  In my experience, the only linguistic situations where it is common to use female as a noun are 1) in scientific writing “the male mantis is decapitated by the larger female”, and even their is usually just to avoid repeating the name of species. Or, 2) within groups of akward men. I’m not sure if they’re trying to sound intelligent by aping scientific terminology, or are so removed from regular contact with women that they see them almost as another species.

  Obviously it doesn’t mean that everyone who talks about ‘females’ is an incel, but its use is highly linked to people who spend time in communities that don’t involve a lot of women. Just as not everyone who uses “bogan” is Australian, but most of them are. Or, have spent a lot of time in Australian-adjacent situations.

  source