Saturday, August 21, 2021

"Female" Dehumanizing And Sexist?


Kenneth Moody-- a University of California, Santa Barbara student-- recently wrote an op-ed in the school’s Daily Nexus newspaper in which he argued that "female" is a “dehumanizing” and “sexist" term for women. Moody wrote: “The word 'female' needs to retire [because] it reaffirms our entire binary gender system. If we are to move toward a more inclusive society, then our language needs to change and stop equating being female to be a woman.”

Moody apparently attempted to somehow equate the terms “female” and “women” with “gay” and “homosexual.” He wrote: "The clinical terms of 'female' and 'homosexual,' when used in everyday conversation, give an impression that women and gay people are a different species from 'normal' cisgender and heterosexual men and therefore less human."

No, they don’t. Not in any way, shape or form.

“Female” gives the impression that females are different from—and complimentary to—male human beings, not a different species. If “female” was used to imply that women were less than “human,” the same would apply to the term “male.” If one wanted to (accurately) give the impression that some other person or group was a different species, the terms they would use would be those such as “pig,” “trout,” “horse,” or “ass.”           

Speaking of horse’s asses, Moody is one, though with less common sense. “Female” is sexist, in the same way that “male” is, the same way that calling a horse a horse is speciesist or calling any being, place, or thing what it is is determinist and judgmental. That is entirely the point, else chaos and confusion would reign supreme. “Male” is equally as sexist—or non-sexist-- as “female.”

Furthermore, Mr. Moody should know better than to use a term like “dehumanizing,” as it has “man” in it. That’s misogynistic. (Come to think of it, “male” contains the word “ma,” making me wonder if it is really a euphemism for “old lady,” and therefore also an example of appropriation.)

Oddly enough, Moody is not the first whacko to argue that “female” is a word with hidden nefarious meaning. Back in 2016, Time Magazine allowed UC Berkeley professor Robin Lakoff to soil its pages by opining that to equate a woman with a female is to “subtly downgrade her to a lower mammalian status, rather like calling a guy an ‘ape.'” No, its rather like equating a man with a male. How does “female” equate to “a lower mammalian status?” For that matter, how does either “male” or “female” equate to “ape?” After all, there are female apes and male apes.

In point of fact, most popular dictionaries still define a woman as an “adult female person.”

“Female,” “male,” and other terms for the two sexes are anything but “dehumanizing.” They are symbolic of why there are humans. What is dehumanizing is Leftists’ attempts to neutralize language and erase the distinction between men and women, while simultaneously emphasizing the differences between those of various skin colors and socio-economic classes.


No comments:

Post a Comment