Female as an adjective is way less weird than female as a noun. To me it just feels like the adjective form of woman, since there isn't really an obvious alternative (I mean there is womanly but that means something different and it would be 100x weirder to say 'zero womanly sex partners'). I guess if you wanted you could talk about 'woman sex partners' rather than 'female sex partners', but that still sounds kinda weird to my ears, just as 'man sex partners' would.
I think your example sounds weird to your ears because the way you phrased it is mixing singular and plural. That should sound weird to your ears. But the way @D61@hexbear.net phrased it above, "Share of men under 30 who report zero women sex partners" doesn't make this error and sounds perfectly fine.
it would be 100x weirder to say 'zero womanly sex partners'
That would be weird, just as it would be weird to say "manly people under 30 report..." but neither is necessary when you can just use 'men' and 'women.' In any case, it is definitely weird to use 'men' and 'female' in the same sentence, not for any grammatical reason but because of the dehumanizing nature of it.
"Zero men as sex partners" sounds perfectly fine, yeah. Turns out there are many ways the same information can be phrased while a) being grammatically correct and b) not resorting to language that has been rightly called out by feminist and trans activists for being subtly dehumanizing. Not a difficult thing to do, and it's disappointing to me that people here are defending the wording used in this bunk and useless incel survey as if it's not possible to do both a and b at the same time. Even telling a comrade they're "too online" for pointing it out.
that doesn't change that the phrasing used is not remarkable and quite standard.
Misogyny in a patriarchal bourgeois society is not remarkable and quite standard?
Can you not fathom the possibility that maybe just maybe words have different connotations depending on the specific usage? It's not because incels creepily use 'female' as a noun that we need to banish a totally normal adjective. It's clearly not being considered dehumanising to say 'male virginity', because you made no mention of it, even though referring to people as 'males' sure as hell is.
Misogyny in a patriarchal bourgeois society is not remarkable and quite standard?
This isn't a misogyny thing it's a normal phrasing thing. It's not like the adjective 'female' is somehow being used completely differently from 'male'. In fact, they literally use 'male' in the title of the graph. If it had been about women having sex with men it would have said 'women who report zero male sex partners', not 'women who report zero sex partners who are men' because the latter is wordier and just not the usual way people form their sentences.
As a sidenote the survey doesn't seem to be an incel survery, incels just really like it because they think it proves their point. The survey isn't about 'male virginity', that's just what's been cherrypicked out of it by incels.
Can you not fathom the possibility that maybe just maybe words have different connotations depending on the specific usage?
Not only can I "fathom" it, it's what I was trying to explain to you in my last comment. Ironically, something I'm still trying to get through.
It's not because incels creepily use 'female' as a noun that we need to banish a totally normal adjective.
We don't need to banish the word at all, regardless of how it's used as an article. We do need to recognize how it's used, in what context it's used, and be critical of the assumption that that usage is just 'how it has to be' for it to be grammatical and not sound "weird."
It's clearly not being considered dehumanising to say 'male virginity', because you made no mention of it, even though referring to people as 'males' sure as hell is.
What a strange thing to say when you were just trying to talk about the important of context. Referring to some people as males is not dehumanizing. Referring to some people as females is not dehumanizing, not inherently.
This isn't a misogyny thing it's a normal phrasing thing.
That is what we need to be critical of. Referring to men as men but women as females in the same sentence says something about the assumptions of the author, whether they intended it or not and whether they recognize it or not. I highly doubt they intended anything negative by it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed subtly misogynistic phrasing.
It's not like the adjective 'female' is somehow being used completely differently from 'male'. In fact, they literally use 'male' in the title of the graph.
It's not the words "male" or "female" or even what kind of article they are that is at issue! I almost wrote out in my last comment that I wouldn't have had an objection if the wording had been "Share of male respondents under 30 who report zero female sex partners since they turned 18," but I didn't think it was necessary to get the point across. Once more, it is talking about men as men but women as females that makes it misogynist (minor, subtle, cultural-backround-noise misogyny sure, but still worth pointing out, which D61 was right to do).
If it had been about women having sex with men it would have said 'women who report zero male sex partners', not 'women who report zero sex partners who are men' because the latter is wordier and just not the usual way people form their sentences.
It also wouldn't have been a problem because we don't live in a society that values the humanity of women above men. There's that pesky context again.
As a sidenote the survey doesn't seem to be an incel survery, incels just really like it because they think it proves their point. The survey isn't about 'male virginity', that's just what's been cherrypicked out of it by incels.
I agree. I was mostly referring to what EmmaGoldman was talking about further down the thread, detailing for us how it is bunk science that is manipulating statistics to come to a preconceived conclusion. I have no idea if the author is an incel, but given the abuse of the data as well as the little language cues, I would be amazed if they didn't have some very strong opinions about feminism.
That is what we need to be critical of. Referring to men as men but women as females in the same sentence
It did not refer to women as 'females', it used 'female' as an adjective to refer to things related to women. Again, the reverse would have done if talking about the sexual partners of women. 'Men' and 'female' are used because they are being used in different contexts in the sentence. If the sentence had been something like 'men who report zero sex with females' that would have been entirely different. So yes, despite your insistence that you aren't, you do seem to be taking issue with the word itself, rather than its usage.
It also wouldn't have been a problem because we don't live in a society that values the humanity of women above men. There's that pesky context again.
If this use of 'female' were somehow uniquely dehumanising don't you think it would be done less for men? But it doesn't seem to be so, or at least not substantially. Indeed, a different article also in the WaPo about an earlier version of the survey speaks of 'men reporting male sexual partners', almost a copy paste of the phrasing, but with the 'male' replacing 'female' to suit the context. If living in a society that values men more were making these not equivalent, we would expect the version talking about 'women with male sex partners' to sound a little unusual, even if not strictly incorrect, because of the 'subtle dehumanisation' of men, something which isn't as common in society. The fact that it seems like a pretty neutral statement indicates to me that that is not the case.
Female as an adjective is way less weird than female as a noun. To me it just feels like the adjective form of woman, since there isn't really an obvious alternative (I mean there is womanly but that means something different and it would be 100x weirder to say 'zero womanly sex partners'). I guess if you wanted you could talk about 'woman sex partners' rather than 'female sex partners', but that still sounds kinda weird to my ears, just as 'man sex partners' would.
I think your example sounds weird to your ears because the way you phrased it is mixing singular and plural. That should sound weird to your ears. But the way @D61@hexbear.net phrased it above, "Share of men under 30 who report zero women sex partners" doesn't make this error and sounds perfectly fine.
That would be weird, just as it would be weird to say "manly people under 30 report..." but neither is necessary when you can just use 'men' and 'women.' In any case, it is definitely weird to use 'men' and 'female' in the same sentence, not for any grammatical reason but because of the dehumanizing nature of it.
Does 'zero men sexual partners' sound normal to you?
Even if it does for you though, that doesn't change that the phrasing used is not remarkable and quite standard.
"Zero men as sex partners" sounds perfectly fine, yeah. Turns out there are many ways the same information can be phrased while a) being grammatically correct and b) not resorting to language that has been rightly called out by feminist and trans activists for being subtly dehumanizing. Not a difficult thing to do, and it's disappointing to me that people here are defending the wording used in this bunk and useless incel survey as if it's not possible to do both a and b at the same time. Even telling a comrade they're "too online" for pointing it out.
Misogyny in a patriarchal bourgeois society is not remarkable and quite standard?
Can you not fathom the possibility that maybe just maybe words have different connotations depending on the specific usage? It's not because incels creepily use 'female' as a noun that we need to banish a totally normal adjective. It's clearly not being considered dehumanising to say 'male virginity', because you made no mention of it, even though referring to people as 'males' sure as hell is.
This isn't a misogyny thing it's a normal phrasing thing. It's not like the adjective 'female' is somehow being used completely differently from 'male'. In fact, they literally use 'male' in the title of the graph. If it had been about women having sex with men it would have said 'women who report zero male sex partners', not 'women who report zero sex partners who are men' because the latter is wordier and just not the usual way people form their sentences.
As a sidenote the survey doesn't seem to be an incel survery, incels just really like it because they think it proves their point. The survey isn't about 'male virginity', that's just what's been cherrypicked out of it by incels.
Not only can I "fathom" it, it's what I was trying to explain to you in my last comment. Ironically, something I'm still trying to get through.
We don't need to banish the word at all, regardless of how it's used as an article. We do need to recognize how it's used, in what context it's used, and be critical of the assumption that that usage is just 'how it has to be' for it to be grammatical and not sound "weird."
What a strange thing to say when you were just trying to talk about the important of context. Referring to some people as males is not dehumanizing. Referring to some people as females is not dehumanizing, not inherently.
That is what we need to be critical of. Referring to men as men but women as females in the same sentence says something about the assumptions of the author, whether they intended it or not and whether they recognize it or not. I highly doubt they intended anything negative by it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed subtly misogynistic phrasing.
It also wouldn't have been a problem because we don't live in a society that values the humanity of women above men. There's that pesky context again.
I agree. I was mostly referring to what EmmaGoldman was talking about further down the thread, detailing for us how it is bunk science that is manipulating statistics to come to a preconceived conclusion. I have no idea if the author is an incel, but given the abuse of the data as well as the little language cues, I would be amazed if they didn't have some very strong opinions about feminism.
It did not refer to women as 'females', it used 'female' as an adjective to refer to things related to women. Again, the reverse would have done if talking about the sexual partners of women. 'Men' and 'female' are used because they are being used in different contexts in the sentence. If the sentence had been something like 'men who report zero sex with females' that would have been entirely different. So yes, despite your insistence that you aren't, you do seem to be taking issue with the word itself, rather than its usage.
If this use of 'female' were somehow uniquely dehumanising don't you think it would be done less for men? But it doesn't seem to be so, or at least not substantially. Indeed, a different article also in the WaPo about an earlier version of the survey speaks of 'men reporting male sexual partners', almost a copy paste of the phrasing, but with the 'male' replacing 'female' to suit the context. If living in a society that values men more were making these not equivalent, we would expect the version talking about 'women with male sex partners' to sound a little unusual, even if not strictly incorrect, because of the 'subtle dehumanisation' of men, something which isn't as common in society. The fact that it seems like a pretty neutral statement indicates to me that that is not the case.
I usually have intimate relations with very womanly males lol