Comment on These dames wanting inclusivity

• OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Outside of a clinical/scientific setting? It’s comes off a bit creepy. If a guy in a social setting refers to women as “females,” it seems derogatory- as if they were talking about look lesser animals.

  In online forums like Lemmy or Reddit, if someone calls women “females,” I always picture that person as a Ferengi from Star Trek.

  source

  • zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I wouldn’t have a problem with someone using males/females in a vacuum, but all too often I read men/females from incels and misogynists on the Internet, so now “females” feels derogatory by default.

    source
  • FelixCress@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Outside of a clinical/scientific setting? It’s comes off a bit creepy

    Male/female toilets sound creepy to you?

    source

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      “Male/female toilets” is not the same thing as “males/females”

      source
    • enbyecho@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The fact that it apparently doesn’t sound creepy to you is creepy. You priapic huuumahn.

      source

      • FelixCress@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        You are an idiot.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It only really comes off as weird when they’re used as nouns. As adjectives they’re generally pretty unobjectionable.

      source

      • FelixCress@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        As you can see bunch of idiots down voted me to oblivion. USians are fucking weird.

        source
• wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  OOP

  okay but how does object-oriented programming factor into it

  source

  • oo1@lemmings.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Objectifying women is considered bad form. It’d be like saying they’re just a sub-class of Person.

    source

    • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Some are sub-class others are dom-class, and then there’s the gimps.

      source
    • TIN@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Excellent reply

      source
• MoonManKipper@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Men/women - gender (social). Male, female - sex (biology). It’s very simple, just use the right one depending on the context.

  source

  • nickiwest@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Men/women - nouns Male/female - adjectives

    I think the reason male and female get equated with biology is because biologists need to describe individuals in terms of characteristics within the species.

    Like, “I live with a small, white, female felis catus and a tall, Caucasian, male homo sapiens” is a weird way to tell people that I live with my cat and my husband outside of a scientific context.

    source

    • Iceblade02@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Male/Female are also nouns, which are biological terms.

      source

      • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Exactly. The key thing is the differentiation of sex (biology) and gender (social). A bathroom for women can be used by all women, even those who happen to have male bodies. It also clarifies the difference between transsexual and transgender - most transgender people are not transsexual.

        source
  • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    This isn’t as simple as you are implying as if you want to be a bro to trans people more nuance is generally required. Male and Female are not used strictly scientifically in context. Male and Female are often used as adjective forms of man and woman. Take the example of a male or female firefighter - if a trans man is a firefighter refering to him as a female firefighter using this reasoning comes across as fairly transphobic because it feels like you are either trying to utilize some sort of technical linguistic dodge to find an occasion to misgender them or your purpose is to out them to people unawares of their trans status.

    Even when people use male and female as nouns instead of adjectives this transphobic reading applies because a lot of fairly obnoxious people will try and use these words as shorthand to imply that trans identities don’t matter and to avoid calling you by terms that align to your identity or to isolate trans identify out of discussions. This is why you hear the phrase “Assigned male/female at birth” used by the trans community (though it actually originates from the intersex community) or “birth sex” to refer to groups that include non-binary people instead of just male or female. That linguistic abstraction is important because it implies removal by way of time. In trans terms one can be treated as female at birth given the assumption of cisness for infants implying that that term could be inaccurate in the present day.

    By contrast “Trans Identitied males/females” is a transphobic dog whistle. “Biologic males/females” has the same vibe because from a scientific prospect the term is so bloody vague it is practically meaningless. The speaker is just trying to imply the social category is irrelevant or putting emphasis on an assumed physicality. Like if someone says for example “biological males in women’s sports” you know the entire point they are going to be making is total exclusion before they even bother to elaborate further.

    The reality is words Male and Female still represent social categories unless you append onto them more specific adjectives in term like Phenotypic, chromasomal or so on. These words are not immune from the cultural moment of negotiation of trans inclusion.

    source