First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules. For example, the Académie Française and the Real Academia Española, which work for French and Spanish, respectively. English is an exception, which uses common usage rather than strict “definitions.” So while English is free to change with speakers, some languages do have official groups that make rules about their use.
Second, those who dislike “female” (when used as a noun describing female humans, specifically) aren’t turning the word into a pejorative - they are merely reporting that their experience with the word, when used in that way, expresses derogatory sentiments. The critics aren’t turning it into a “bad word,” the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population. To ignore the way that effect makes women and girls feel, even though they’re the ones being directly affected by such usage, is quite dismissive. I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly, but if you’re a man who goes around explaining to women that they shouldn’t be offended by a term that impacts them, but which you have no personal stake in, it might be wise to step back and listen to their experiences.
First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules.
Not how natural languages work.
Those “authorities” merely claim to be.
You can call yourself the king of Kentucky, too.
aren’t turning the word into a pejorative
Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: their policing would have that effect.
Older activists understood that and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead.
Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: by instead trying to establish self-demeaning complexes into the language, they are playing themselves.
The rest you wrote is misguided opinion you’d ironically perpetuate.
the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population
Counterfactual.
The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, female is inoffensive.
That includes among females themselves.
Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc.
In conventional language, female is an acceptable word.
From an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
This analogy fits you.
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur.
It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge?
Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch?
Why are they trying to make this official?
Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch.
You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch.
You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them.
Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly
Logic has no sex.
You’d be wise not to promote sexism.
A couple things.
First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules. For example, the Académie Française and the Real Academia Española, which work for French and Spanish, respectively. English is an exception, which uses common usage rather than strict “definitions.” So while English is free to change with speakers, some languages do have official groups that make rules about their use.
Second, those who dislike “female” (when used as a noun describing female humans, specifically) aren’t turning the word into a pejorative - they are merely reporting that their experience with the word, when used in that way, expresses derogatory sentiments. The critics aren’t turning it into a “bad word,” the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population. To ignore the way that effect makes women and girls feel, even though they’re the ones being directly affected by such usage, is quite dismissive. I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly, but if you’re a man who goes around explaining to women that they shouldn’t be offended by a term that impacts them, but which you have no personal stake in, it might be wise to step back and listen to their experiences.
Not how natural languages work. Those “authorities” merely claim to be. You can call yourself the king of Kentucky, too.
Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: their policing would have that effect. Older activists understood that and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead. Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: by instead trying to establish self-demeaning complexes into the language, they are playing themselves.
The rest you wrote is misguided opinion you’d ironically perpetuate.
Counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, female is inoffensive. That includes among females themselves. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word.
From an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
This analogy fits you.
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
Logic has no sex. You’d be wise not to promote sexism.