First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules.
All natural languages work the same way.
Some institution claiming otherwise doesn’t change that.
aren’t turning the word into a pejorative
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.
Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: 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.
Our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, yet these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority.
Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society?
Who does that serve?
Older activists understood that doesn’t serve them and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead.
Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to establish sexist language as normative, they could try not 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.
I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly
Logic has no sex.
You’d be wise not to internalize & promote sexism.
All natural languages work the same way. Some institution claiming otherwise doesn’t change that.
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.
Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: 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.
Our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, yet these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority. Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society? Who does that serve?
Older activists understood that doesn’t serve them and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead. Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to establish sexist language as normative, they could try not 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.
Logic has no sex. You’d be wise not to internalize & promote sexism.