Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Este tema ha sido cerrado 
El autor de este tema ha marcado una publicación como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Intentions aren’t magic. Not intending to do something doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. We are responsible for our actions, not just our intentions.
They probably did tbh :)
Not really. Look at any discussion with MGTOW (like the subreddit, for example). It's very common for that particular group to almost exclusively refer to women as either "females" or even "femoids". It can definitely be a red flag, depending on context. That said, I don't usually mind it because I don't think most people have bad intentions. Additionally, the people who use it negatively aren't the type of people I'd want to talk to anyway, so that doesn't affect me.
I hadn't heard the term "femoid" until today.
Exactly.... there's a few out there that think everything internet affects or is part of the real world...
it doesn't... and It's not.
Only read half of this but yeah.
I am very much in agreement that to refer to the woman as "femoid" as I find it to be heavily degenerate & repulsive as a terminology to be used within serious context.
So that makes places like Reddit the exception of linguistics? Language or slang can be naturally developed and popularised without the involvement of a particular person of an "authoritative" academia (which is what you seem to be suggesting).
I would never be in the defence of individuals who think that their emotions warrants them the right to censorship for the Orwellian concept for the "greater protection of all". All criticisms regarding language should be confronted with the use of rationality rather then that of censorship as censorship is the losers game of "winning" when it's forced upon everyone.
Language is constantly both evolving & devolving ("developing"). I wouldn't consider language to have an "evolutionary" aspect as that is such a nonsensical concept that has nothing to deal with spoken language. Evolution refers to natural selection and its evolution of genetics. Language is a development as its vocabulary is expanded, not so-called "evolved" like that of genes. That's not how vocabulary operates and such a concept in itself that vocabulary is "evolutionary" is utterly inane & mind-boggling to even hear about being referred to as such in the first place.
That's not appropriate, or linguistically accurate, when the age-range being discussed includes unknowns who may be below the age of 18 or above the age of 18, or alternatively, when the age-range being discussed includes identified people who ARE above the age of 18 but ALSO identified people who ARE below the age of 18.
"Males" covers both over & under 18... & "females" covers both over and under 18 as well...
We could probably just say "people" instead, which seems far more suitable but many aspects of society are separated into distinct "men's" & "women's" groups (oh, but I don't want to forget the children - "male's" & "female's" groups).
While it would be most inclusive to just say "people", there are also other issues of confusion in language that crop up with just using "people" for everything (one of which being that organizations like "women's shelters" are not named "people's shelters" and are also probably going to call the police if any men show up at their secret safe-houses).
...in fact, because "male" & "female" is inclusive to all ages, many people get in the habit of just using them in place of "man" or "boy", & "woman" or "girl".
That's only 2 words you have to call upon now, instead of 4.
It's a bad time / generation to be a linguist in any country other than those that only have gender-neutral pronouns.
Pronouns suck, in-general, though, because people often need to reference multiple items at once or will use ambiguous "they"s to refer to a group of 3 people in the same sentence that they refer to some administration & expect you to know which group that... said person... was referring to - when... said person... said "they".
When it comes to groupings that don't have a name, it's best to just invent some on-the-fly definitions "Okay, we'll call Wendy, Sarah, and Kay, Group A, & Joe, Frederick, and Robert, Group B. I don't want to have to say all 3 names every time but using they for both groups could get massively confusing."
Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense (not).
Considering that language is very mutable with suffixes & then there's descriptivism, which is about real-world applications instead of grammatical accuracy, which runs in stark contrast to prescriptivism, there's nothing hypocritical about acknowledging how language is actually used, or, in other words, being descriptivist.
The prescriptivist in you says he made up a term that is invalid but the descriptivist in you more likely than not... should know, well, what he is talking about [due to the fact that said "made up word" is formed from pre-existing terms that ARE valid].