I specifically remember the woman that complained that “female” was dehumanizing so that mostly tracks, but the issue with that perception is that people purchase male animals for breeding and people (men or women) who heard me using the same terminology never complained about the dehumanization of calling them males. I get that the social dynamics here are complicated of course. I suppose men typically are socialized to not care about being dehumanized or even perceive dehumanization as much. The asymmetry irks me.
I’ll repeat that I don’t use the terminology anymore for the sake of politeness but my thoughts remain nuanced on the matter. Where some see dehumanization, I see on the opposite end a coping mechanism in the form of a base level of romanticization. Implying we humans are free of our animal instincts or that we ought to be ashamed of the best aspects (IMO) of our animal nature.
Men who use the term “female” as a means to purposefully dehumanize are of course not only assholes but also annoying to me in the same way just inverted: I dislike debasing things that are neutral/positive for the sense of elitism or superiority. Or making something innocent and ordinary out to be crude and gross. I’ve never really related that well to men telling sex jokes for instance (and I’ve had some male friends who did that constantly and it annoyed me but I mostly just rolled my eyes at it).
I don’t like crudeness at the same level as romanticization because that crude attitude also implies a sacredness that they’re purposefully defiling. I don’t like the implication of existing sacredness OR the desire to get under people’s skin about it since that just contributes to the sense of taboo around sexuality and gender.
I’m not at my keyboard so my reply will be more brief than I’d like. Unfortunately, connotations will always have a significant amount of contextual nuance, and human communication is absolutely full of it. I appreciate that you make an effort to not upset people, and understand how certain terms have been ruined by those mis-using phrases. It is absolutely frustrating when something should be neutral. But language itself conveys semantics and tone, it will be impossible to have everyone take even the most innocuous sentences as neutral, because unless you’re lecturing facts, people will try to attach a purpose to your words.
Just replying to show a genuine interest in a more fleshed out response from you when you are at a keyboard again, if you aren’t up for writing more on it though, no worries.
I specifically remember the woman that complained that “female” was dehumanizing so that mostly tracks, but the issue with that perception is that people purchase male animals for breeding and people (men or women) who heard me using the same terminology never complained about the dehumanization of calling them males. I get that the social dynamics here are complicated of course. I suppose men typically are socialized to not care about being dehumanized or even perceive dehumanization as much. The asymmetry irks me.
I’ll repeat that I don’t use the terminology anymore for the sake of politeness but my thoughts remain nuanced on the matter. Where some see dehumanization, I see on the opposite end a coping mechanism in the form of a base level of romanticization. Implying we humans are free of our animal instincts or that we ought to be ashamed of the best aspects (IMO) of our animal nature.
Men who use the term “female” as a means to purposefully dehumanize are of course not only assholes but also annoying to me in the same way just inverted: I dislike debasing things that are neutral/positive for the sense of elitism or superiority. Or making something innocent and ordinary out to be crude and gross. I’ve never really related that well to men telling sex jokes for instance (and I’ve had some male friends who did that constantly and it annoyed me but I mostly just rolled my eyes at it).
I don’t like crudeness at the same level as romanticization because that crude attitude also implies a sacredness that they’re purposefully defiling. I don’t like the implication of existing sacredness OR the desire to get under people’s skin about it since that just contributes to the sense of taboo around sexuality and gender.
I’m not at my keyboard so my reply will be more brief than I’d like. Unfortunately, connotations will always have a significant amount of contextual nuance, and human communication is absolutely full of it. I appreciate that you make an effort to not upset people, and understand how certain terms have been ruined by those mis-using phrases. It is absolutely frustrating when something should be neutral. But language itself conveys semantics and tone, it will be impossible to have everyone take even the most innocuous sentences as neutral, because unless you’re lecturing facts, people will try to attach a purpose to your words.
Just replying to show a genuine interest in a more fleshed out response from you when you are at a keyboard again, if you aren’t up for writing more on it though, no worries.