go ahead, next time you see ir are talking about a man or men , say “hey, male” or “males like to…” see how they respond to what has become a derogatory, sexualized term for a person in casual conversation.
the demeaning objectification is why insecure men say “female” and men are not addressed as “males”.
Sure? I’d do it all day. It wouldn’t bother me on the giving or receiving end. it’s a word with a definition and as long as it applies to the situation/male I’m speaking with it’ll be business as usual. In fact, I’ll use it to address every single male I encounter for the next 24 hours, in and out of work. That’s how confident I am that nobody, that is male would bat an eye or care.
What about the term ladies…is that ‘socially acceptable’. It’s got sexual connotations like ladies of the night. Which is another way of sayings street whore. Should that be shunned too? Perhaps we should just abolish English or even language altogether for fear that someone gets offended.
I really do not understand these weird feelings people put on things, then expect the world to ensure they follow some rule of feelings. It’s absurd.
this is exactly your problem, that you’re okay insulting people. You are bragging about not caring about others.
You care about your own feelings and want everyone to listen to only your feelings.
Insulting people or claiming that you wouldn’t mind being insulted doesn’t matter here, it’s that you’re hurting other people.
“as long as it applies to the situation/male I’m speaking with it’ll be business as usua”
that’s how definitions work, not people, not intention, not culture, and not objectification.
you can choose in your mind to believe that an insult is not insulting, but that doesn’t stop the insult from being insulting.
You are exclusively targeting women here.
You can attack gay people on the weekends and swear that you just like hitting people with bats, it has nothing to do with them being gay, but if you are exclusively targeting homosexuals, then you are attacking gay people, it doesn’t matter what your asserted beliefs are.
You can claim you don’t mean an insult as an insult, but if you use that insult, then you are insulting people.
You are hurting others despite what your feelings are.
“What about the term ladies.”
that is socially acceptable depending on the social group and your intentions.
you can say “punk” as a friendly jibe with a friend or you can call someone a punk in a bar and get yourself ostracized or even get your ass beat.
your problem with using “female” is that it’s used primarily as an objectifying term in casual conversation, so again, you can choose to claim an insult is not insulting, but that doesn’t negate the insult.
Your feelings do not negate the feelings of others.
When you use that term, you are insulting all women using a shorthand to show that you do not respect any woman as an equal person.
“street whore. Should that be shunned too?”
yes, “street whore” is another insulting term that should not be used to refer to half of the human race.
“we should just abolish English…”
that is an impractical and unrealistic solution to your specific bigotry.
There’s no reason to punish everyone for your selfish bigotry.
“I really do not understand these weird feelings…”
This is probably a symptom of focusing internally rather than on the community you are a part of.
Empathy is the key. If someone tells you how they would like to be treated, treat them that way.
If they tell you they would not like you to insult them, then don’t insult them.
You can choose to insult them if you want, but that doesn’t make you a revolutionary, just an asshole.
“hey follow some rule of feelings. It’s absurd.”
This is correct because it’s what you are insisting.
You are insisting that everyone follow your feelings alone and to ignore the feelings of everyone else.
What about the term ladies…is that ‘socially acceptable’.
It is, yes.
“Female” is the term to refer to the sex of an animal, which does include humans but its usually the term you use when describing a… dog or cat or whatever.
People however prefer when you specifically use any of the multitude of human gender terms for us.
So Woman, Lady, Maam, Gals, Girls, Chicks, etc. These all still are what you call a person
Consider the inverse: When you refer to an animal with those terms, its an act of respect, you’ve humanized it. If you walk up to a cow and say “Hello maam” it’s usually inherently signaling “I like/respect this animal to the degree Im using a human pronoun for it”
Or if you have a pet deg and you go “Lookit this distinguished gentleman” or “How are you today sir?”, same diff, you humanized it via the pronoun, which is a way to signal love/affection/respect.
When you do the opposite and call a woman a female or a man a male, it’s inherently disrespectful. You’ve effectively implied you classify them at the same tier as an animal in a laboratory. It dehumanizes.
If you think about all the classic insults for people, a lot of them just boil down to calling them an animal. “Pig” “Bitch” “Cow”, “Sheep” etc, if you call people by these terms its usually considered at minimum sorta offensive, but often very offensive.
When you refer to someone as a human (a specifically human term) is it paradoxically dehumanizing?
The human argues that clinical, generic terms nonspecific to humans dehumanize people.
Perhaps referring to a person by more generic, abstract terms indicates (bizarre) distance & detachment rather than anything inherently dehumanizing?
Those examples you cited signaled closeness or distance to me rather than humanity & respect.
As in “I feel close to this animal, so I’ll address it in specific personal terms for addressing a person I may know”.
The insults, however, refer to a human as an animal they are not while drawing unfavorable comparisons.
It doesn’t work with every animal, eg, fox, vixen, ox, lion, shark, starfish.
Also varies by context & comparisons drawn.
Reading more into generic, abstract terms is an interpretation and some contexts may indicate that.
However, claiming an inherently disrespectful or dehumanizing meaning is contentious: without context to support it, it seems more like an effort to seek grievance than to consider honest meaning.
Perhaps referring to a person by more generic, abstract terms indicates (bizarre) distance & detachment rather than anything inherently dehumanizing?
I think these two go hand in hand, when spoken by a human.
Because if I, a person, refer to your humanity in a detached way, it still is implying you are “distanced” from me (the person), contextually.
And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.
That’s why it only comes across as offensive when spoken by another human, because they shouldnt be speaking about a fellow specific human in a detached way… on account of them being a human too.
However, claiming an inherently disrespectful or dehumanizing meaning is contentious
Sure. The context when it isn’t is if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake.
And, yes, I have met people like this. Usually either younger folks, or ELL.
If, however, you become informed of how this comes across and choose to keep doing it anyways now it is intentionally abrasive and will be taken offensively.
Any person who goes “yes I know this pisses people off, and I’m going to do it anyways, even though it’s trivially easy to not to do the thing” is self centered and demonstrating anti social behaviors.
And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.
That assumption seems loaded: relative value is unstated.
The infected must maintain a safe distance or remain quarantined to prevent further infection.
is highly impersonal & could refer to any organism.
However, it doesn’t inherently disrespect or dehumanize.
It’s a factual & neutral statement (or implied instruction) that focuses on a specific quality.
Saying it directly to someone would be weird unless they’re announcing it to an entire room (depersonalizing).
Still, it’s not suggesting anyone is lesser than human or necessarily disrespecting them.
Common notices work the same way.
We don’t need people constantly reminding us we’re human to understand they’re not denying our humanity.
if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake
Or they disagree with your take.
Others share your take, but it’s also a commonly rejected take.
It’s not a logically necessary take.
If, however, you become informed of how this comes across
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
That includes opinions that oppose unreasonable & unjust opinions.
Unless acting abusively, expressions that merely disagree don’t necessarily make someone an asshole.
Deciding it does looks more like going on an expedition for assholes that aren’t there.
This distracts from the question, though, of whether such depersonalized language goes further & necessarily dehumanizes.
I think there’s fair disagreement that it does.
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”
It’s common knowledge. If you refuse to go along with it, you are just bring an asshole abd you will struggle to form meaningful relationships.
People who refuse to just put in the 1% of effort needed to not be offensive are destined to lead a hollow existence, constantly plagued either short term relationships that keep ending early as people get to know who they are and then peace out, or, are also an asshole and they get to “enjoy” each other’s company.
You aren’t arguing in good faith here. If someone tells you something is offensive, it’s nearly zero effort to just go “oh sorry” and just move on.
Only assholes sit and try and debate and argue about how they should be allowed to be an asshole.
You are allowed to be an asshole, it’s not illegal, but it doesn’t stop it from being asshole behavior.
“I doubt any male would find this offensive.”
nobody said they would.
"Call em males, they are afterall. "
go ahead, next time you see ir are talking about a man or men , say “hey, male” or “males like to…” see how they respond to what has become a derogatory, sexualized term for a person in casual conversation.
the demeaning objectification is why insecure men say “female” and men are not addressed as “males”.
Sure? I’d do it all day. It wouldn’t bother me on the giving or receiving end. it’s a word with a definition and as long as it applies to the situation/male I’m speaking with it’ll be business as usual. In fact, I’ll use it to address every single male I encounter for the next 24 hours, in and out of work. That’s how confident I am that nobody, that is male would bat an eye or care.
What about the term ladies…is that ‘socially acceptable’. It’s got sexual connotations like ladies of the night. Which is another way of sayings street whore. Should that be shunned too? Perhaps we should just abolish English or even language altogether for fear that someone gets offended.
I really do not understand these weird feelings people put on things, then expect the world to ensure they follow some rule of feelings. It’s absurd.
“I’d do it all day.”
this is exactly your problem, that you’re okay insulting people. You are bragging about not caring about others.
You care about your own feelings and want everyone to listen to only your feelings.
Insulting people or claiming that you wouldn’t mind being insulted doesn’t matter here, it’s that you’re hurting other people.
“as long as it applies to the situation/male I’m speaking with it’ll be business as usua”
that’s how definitions work, not people, not intention, not culture, and not objectification.
you can choose in your mind to believe that an insult is not insulting, but that doesn’t stop the insult from being insulting.
You are exclusively targeting women here.
You can attack gay people on the weekends and swear that you just like hitting people with bats, it has nothing to do with them being gay, but if you are exclusively targeting homosexuals, then you are attacking gay people, it doesn’t matter what your asserted beliefs are.
You can claim you don’t mean an insult as an insult, but if you use that insult, then you are insulting people.
You are hurting others despite what your feelings are.
“What about the term ladies.”
that is socially acceptable depending on the social group and your intentions.
you can say “punk” as a friendly jibe with a friend or you can call someone a punk in a bar and get yourself ostracized or even get your ass beat.
your problem with using “female” is that it’s used primarily as an objectifying term in casual conversation, so again, you can choose to claim an insult is not insulting, but that doesn’t negate the insult.
Your feelings do not negate the feelings of others.
When you use that term, you are insulting all women using a shorthand to show that you do not respect any woman as an equal person.
“street whore. Should that be shunned too?”
yes, “street whore” is another insulting term that should not be used to refer to half of the human race.
“we should just abolish English…”
that is an impractical and unrealistic solution to your specific bigotry.
There’s no reason to punish everyone for your selfish bigotry.
“I really do not understand these weird feelings…”
This is probably a symptom of focusing internally rather than on the community you are a part of.
Empathy is the key. If someone tells you how they would like to be treated, treat them that way.
If they tell you they would not like you to insult them, then don’t insult them.
You can choose to insult them if you want, but that doesn’t make you a revolutionary, just an asshole.
“hey follow some rule of feelings. It’s absurd.”
This is correct because it’s what you are insisting.
You are insisting that everyone follow your feelings alone and to ignore the feelings of everyone else.
Which is absurd.
It is, yes.
“Female” is the term to refer to the sex of an animal, which does include humans but its usually the term you use when describing a… dog or cat or whatever.
People however prefer when you specifically use any of the multitude of human gender terms for us.
So Woman, Lady, Maam, Gals, Girls, Chicks, etc. These all still are what you call a person
Consider the inverse: When you refer to an animal with those terms, its an act of respect, you’ve humanized it. If you walk up to a cow and say “Hello maam” it’s usually inherently signaling “I like/respect this animal to the degree Im using a human pronoun for it”
Or if you have a pet deg and you go “Lookit this distinguished gentleman” or “How are you today sir?”, same diff, you humanized it via the pronoun, which is a way to signal love/affection/respect.
When you do the opposite and call a woman a female or a man a male, it’s inherently disrespectful. You’ve effectively implied you classify them at the same tier as an animal in a laboratory. It dehumanizes.
If you think about all the classic insults for people, a lot of them just boil down to calling them an animal. “Pig” “Bitch” “Cow”, “Sheep” etc, if you call people by these terms its usually considered at minimum sorta offensive, but often very offensive.
“Female” is the same, when you refer to a woman.
When you refer to someone as a human (a specifically human term) is it paradoxically dehumanizing?
Perhaps referring to a person by more generic, abstract terms indicates (bizarre) distance & detachment rather than anything inherently dehumanizing?
Those examples you cited signaled closeness or distance to me rather than humanity & respect. As in “I feel close to this animal, so I’ll address it in specific personal terms for addressing a person I may know”.
The insults, however, refer to a human as an animal they are not while drawing unfavorable comparisons. It doesn’t work with every animal, eg, fox, vixen, ox, lion, shark, starfish. Also varies by context & comparisons drawn.
Reading more into generic, abstract terms is an interpretation and some contexts may indicate that. However, claiming an inherently disrespectful or dehumanizing meaning is contentious: without context to support it, it seems more like an effort to seek grievance than to consider honest meaning.
I think these two go hand in hand, when spoken by a human.
Because if I, a person, refer to your humanity in a detached way, it still is implying you are “distanced” from me (the person), contextually.
And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.
That’s why it only comes across as offensive when spoken by another human, because they shouldnt be speaking about a fellow specific human in a detached way… on account of them being a human too.
Sure. The context when it isn’t is if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake.
And, yes, I have met people like this. Usually either younger folks, or ELL.
If, however, you become informed of how this comes across and choose to keep doing it anyways now it is intentionally abrasive and will be taken offensively.
Any person who goes “yes I know this pisses people off, and I’m going to do it anyways, even though it’s trivially easy to not to do the thing” is self centered and demonstrating anti social behaviors.
Aka, an asshole.
That assumption seems loaded: relative value is unstated.
is highly impersonal & could refer to any organism. However, it doesn’t inherently disrespect or dehumanize. It’s a factual & neutral statement (or implied instruction) that focuses on a specific quality.
Saying it directly to someone would be weird unless they’re announcing it to an entire room (depersonalizing). Still, it’s not suggesting anyone is lesser than human or necessarily disrespecting them. Common notices work the same way.
We don’t need people constantly reminding us we’re human to understand they’re not denying our humanity.
Or they disagree with your take. Others share your take, but it’s also a commonly rejected take. It’s not a logically necessary take.
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That includes opinions that oppose unreasonable & unjust opinions.
Unless acting abusively, expressions that merely disagree don’t necessarily make someone an asshole. Deciding it does looks more like going on an expedition for assholes that aren’t there.
This distracts from the question, though, of whether such depersonalized language goes further & necessarily dehumanizes. I think there’s fair disagreement that it does.
You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”
It’s common knowledge. If you refuse to go along with it, you are just bring an asshole abd you will struggle to form meaningful relationships.
People who refuse to just put in the 1% of effort needed to not be offensive are destined to lead a hollow existence, constantly plagued either short term relationships that keep ending early as people get to know who they are and then peace out, or, are also an asshole and they get to “enjoy” each other’s company.
You aren’t arguing in good faith here. If someone tells you something is offensive, it’s nearly zero effort to just go “oh sorry” and just move on.
Only assholes sit and try and debate and argue about how they should be allowed to be an asshole.
You are allowed to be an asshole, it’s not illegal, but it doesn’t stop it from being asshole behavior.