What do female writers think about males writing from a female POV?

[TadOverdon]

Would you believe that I've never thought about this or formed an opinion?

All my life I've been reading stories of all kinds by writers of all genders who have created characters of all genders.

I just think that's what fiction writers do.

Of course, I'll wince at the way a guy writes women, if it's bad. And I usually think to myself, "That's a bad writer," or even, sometimes, yes, "This guy's pretty dumb about women." But I've never formed a general opinion about male or female writers from that.

 

[MillieDynamite]

So back to the gender-identifying software. To determine male or female, one of the criteria used is the use of she, he, her, him, wife, husband, and other gender-based words. The more use of she, her, and wife, the less of he, him, and husband identifies the writer as male. Which for same-sex stories means jack shit. In fact, rather, really, and actually (according to the study) indicates a female writer, as we use more adverbs than men. What the fuck? The more I read about the methodology more I think it's all a bunch of hogwash.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I did that with "Bigfoot and the Wood Nymph" and it seemed to work. As has been noted elsewhere, the two stories don't describe the encounter in exactly the same way, because people's memories differ. I thought that added a bit of verisimilitude to the narratives. (And that, friends, will be my $20 word of the day.)

I tried one tale of a M/F romp with the POV shifting back and forth between the man and woman without warning or label; the reader had to work on context. It was a bit too subtle and I wouldn’t do it again, but it was an interesting challenge.

 

[TheRedChamber]

So back to the gender-identifying software. To determine male or female, one of the criteria used is the use of she, he, her, him, wife, husband, and other gender-based words. The more use of she, her, and wife, the less of he, him, and husband identifies the writer as male. Which for same-sex stories means jack shit. In fact, rather, really, and actually (according to the study) indicates a female writer, as we use more adverbs than men. What the fuck? The more I read about the methodology more I think it's all a bunch of hogwash.

The point with this is not that the AI doesn't know about same-sex marriages, it's that it has no concept of marriage or anything human related at all. All it knows is that it was given stack A of documents and stack B of documents and the letters 'w','i','f','e' occurred together slightly (or significantly) more often in stack A so there's slightly more chance that this document which has 'wife' in it belongs to stack A. It doesn't matter to it that stack A is 'documents written by men' and stack 'documents written by women' or if stack A is 'Literotica's lesbian section' and stack B is 'Literotica's gay male section'.

The selection of those documents is key though. There's a famous (but apparently apocryphal) story about the army trying to train an AI to recognize tanks in photographs. The photographer spent 4 hours in the morning photographing all kinds of tanks around the base, in hangars, on roads, behind trees. He then knocked off for lunch and spent the whole of the afternoon photographing the same places without tanks. The researchers thought they'd successfully trained the AI to identify tanks, only later to discover they'd actually successfully trained it to identify what time of day it was.

 

[stickygirl]

This might be a great way to answer the OP's question. Ask women authors to name male authors that they think write women characters well, or do a good job narrating from a woman's POV.

Sorry to be late to the party but here's some authors who wrote great female characters - Andre Norton, James Tiptree, Currer Bell, George Sand. I'm not sure FatherAnal will enjoy them though.

On the subject of gender identifying, why do guys at Lit often use a female AV?

Amazon and Google use the best gender identifying software based on what we buy and look at, which is kinda how gender is defined in a practical sense. Happily they can't yet guess what we're thinking all the time: after browsing spares for a boat on Amazon, its next suggestion was for Anusol.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The point with this is not that the AI doesn't know about same-sex marriages, it's that it has no concept of marriage or anything human related at all. All it knows is that it was given stack A of documents and stack B of documents and the letters 'w','i','f','e' occurred together slightly (or significantly) more often in stack A so there's slightly more chance that this document which has 'wife' in it belongs to stack A. It doesn't matter to it that stack A is 'documents written by men' and stack 'documents written by women' or if stack A is 'Literotica's lesbian section' and stack B is 'Literotica's gay male section'.

The selection of those documents is key though. There's a famous (but apparently apocryphal) story about the army trying to train an AI to recognize tanks in photographs. The photographer spent 4 hours in the morning photographing all kinds of tanks around the base, in hangars, on roads, behind trees. He then knocked off for lunch and spent the whole of the afternoon photographing the same places without tanks. The researchers thought they'd successfully trained the AI to identify tanks, only later to discover they'd actually successfully trained it to identify what time of day it was.

Training AI recognition is full of peril. Face recognition in particular. Some years back it was observed it tended to be much better at distinguishing men than women - thanks to being trained on the ID photos of employees at the companies working on it. Similarly it tended to be good on white people, not good at distinguishing other people. Spouse worked on this for a bit and a company merged with his said they'd got some software that was really good at distinguishing black people. Only when they came over to London and tested it, it was unusably crap. Turned out it had been trained on pictures of black American prisoners, which may represent black American men fairly well but was useless for black British women or any black person from an East African background. Back to the drawing board.

There's some truth in the idea that women are more likely to use tentative language like 'maybe' or 'I think' - and so are advised to remove most of them from business emails before sending, and more likely to use superlatives and adverbs in casual messaging, but there it's less likely to matter. I reckon you could find the same tentative language split between senior management and junior admin staff, too.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The selection of those documents is key though. There's a famous (but apparently apocryphal) story about the army trying to train an AI to recognize tanks in photographs. The photographer spent 4 hours in the morning photographing all kinds of tanks around the base, in hangars, on roads, behind trees. He then knocked off for lunch and spent the whole of the afternoon photographing the same places without tanks. The researchers thought they'd successfully trained the AI to identify tanks, only later to discover they'd actually successfully trained it to identify what time of day it was.

I don't know about that particular story, but it's a huge problem in machine learning and there are plenty of well-documented RL cases with the same kind of issue.

For instance, this paper in Nature described a deep neural network that had been trained to distinguish benign from malignant skin lesions, with an accuracy as good as a trained dermatologist. But in fact, a lot of what it had learned was how to recognise photos with a ruler in them - because the size of a lesion is important to patient prognosis, malignant lesions are often photographed with a ruler for scale, benign lesions less so.

Or there's the Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. computer-controlled camera, which did great at tracking a soccer ball in trials, but when used in a match preferred to track a bald referee's head.

Or the Ellefsen/Mouret/Clune work mentioned in part 3.1.3 here: a machine-learning system that was supposed to be learning how to distinguish between images of "poison" and "food" (and specifically, how to adapt when items that had previously been "poison" were now "food" and vice versa) learned instead that the training and test data always alternated from poison to food, so it didn't even need to look at the images, because the new image would always be the reverse of whatever the previous one was.

 

[lovecraft68]

Would you believe that I've never thought about this or formed an opinion?

All my life I've been reading stories of all kinds by writers of all genders who have created characters of all genders.

I just think that's what fiction writers do.

Of course, I'll wince at the way a guy writes women, if it's bad. And I usually think to myself, "That's a bad writer," or even, sometimes, yes, "This guy's pretty dumb about women." But I've never formed a general opinion about male or female writers from that.

I'm of the same school of thought, I've never given any real thought to it other than occasionally reading a piece from the female POV and thinking, "I bet this is a guy" based on word choices, tone, reaction, but it was a quick thought, a kind of mental shrug, then just move on because end of the day, why does it matter?

I see things like this as people posting something to discuss, but it somehow turns into something way more important than it is, and at some point leads to arguments or somehow becomes politized(isn't everything these days?) or some type of battle of the sexes, and I will ultimately wonder if that was the person's intent to begin with? Maybe they have strong feelings on it and want validation or to simply argue.

If people went with the simple truth of we are free to write whatever we want however we want regardless of if everyone else does it, or agrees, or disagrees, we'd be doing it right.

Like the old bumper sticker says(and damn we need to get back to this) Live and Let Live...well write and let write. No one's argument, agreement or opinion is changing me as a writer, and that should be how most people see it.

 

[lovecraft68]

So back to the gender-identifying software. To determine male or female, one of the criteria used is the use of she, he, her, him, wife, husband, and other gender-based words. The more use of she, her, and wife, the less of he, him, and husband identifies the writer as male. Which for same-sex stories means jack shit. In fact, rather, really, and actually (according to the study) indicates a female writer, as we use more adverbs than men. What the fuck? The more I read about the methodology more I think it's all a bunch of hogwash.

Word's editor now has "inclusiveness." When I first saw it, I wasn't sure what it was, so when I clicked on the things it wanted me to fix...

I used coed, and they just wanted student.

House wife was something like 'stay at home person'

Brunette was "dark haired person'

I used 'pretty blonde', and I think they wanted just "blonde" or "Blond person"

Basically driven towards taking gender out of every description, after all we live in a time when one political faction literally wants to eradicate the terms woman and female(but notice not man/male...but these same people call everyone else sexist)

For me, if the student I am describing is female, coed works, if she's female brunette words....I know people will give me the I'm out dated or old school or of course some form of ist. On that note my opinion is, excuse me if I don't believe the English language needs to be rewritten by a bunch of 'activists' and referring to a specific gender is some form of insult. If someone in my real life says they would like to be referred to as 'X' I will do that out of respect for them, however in my stories I know the gender of my characters and they are not offended, if the reader is well tough shit, but worth mentioning I've had no complaints on the matter.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

Sorry to be late to the party but here's some authors who wrote great female characters - Andre Norton, James Tiptree, Currer Bell, George Sand. I'm not sure FatherAnal will enjoy them though.

<snip>

https://www.memecreator.org/static/images/memes/5137868.jpg

 

[AlinaX]

Word's editor now has "inclusiveness." When I first saw it, I wasn't sure what it was, so when I clicked on the things it wanted me to fix...

I used coed, and they just wanted student.

House wife was something like 'stay at home person'

Brunette was "dark haired person'

I used 'pretty blonde', and I think they wanted just "blonde" or "Blond person"

Basically driven towards taking gender out of every description, after all we live in a time when one political faction literally wants to eradicate the terms woman and female(but notice not man/male...but these same people call everyone else sexist)

No one wants to eradicate the terms woman and female, but plenty of reactionary sexists throw that accusation around.

The inclusiveness option may seem a little excessive, but if you were writing some official guidance it might prove useful for catching potentially problematic terms and challenging assumptions.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's a self-defense mechanism. If we really start listening to what they're saying, we'll mentally start to try and solve whatever the problem is and that's rarely what is required (See here for further information). I've frequently found myself saying things like "You should quit your job, retrain as a potter and open your own craft shop in the Cotswolds. It won't be easy but I'd fully support you and we can find the money from somewhere" three subsequent nights in a week when all I needed to say was "Wow, you are so right, your job sucks"

I thought that was pretty funny, and it resonates, in a big way, with my experience, both in terms of dealing with female partners but also in dealing with male acquaintances who are more "let's just solve this" than I am.

This is one of those generalizations that aren't true about everybody, and certainly not to the same degree for everyone, but are true enough that many people can see themselves in this couple and laugh at it.

There's another aspect to this dynamic that is, like everything, just a generalization, but in my experience true enough that my guess is others would recognize it. I'm actually a pretty verbal guy who likes to get things out in the open and articulate feelings in a relationship. And I've been in relationships with a partner that does NOT want to articulate things, but seemingly wants to go through long silent periods and sighs and put the burden on me of having to figure things out. That doesn't work well with me. I'm not someone who wants to spend a lot of time processing and stewing over my feelings. I want to identify what they are, and then deal with them.

At the end of the day, there's no right way to communicate in a relationship. People are different. They have different communication styles. Differences can be the source of a lot of conflict and dissatisfaction, as I have discovered over many years. If you are attuned to them as an author, you can use those differences in your characters to generate spice and interest in their dealings with one another. It's something that can lend authenticity to the story.

 

[SimonDoom]

Word's editor now has "inclusiveness." When I first saw it, I wasn't sure what it was, so when I clicked on the things it wanted me to fix...

I used coed, and they just wanted student.

House wife was something like 'stay at home person'

Brunette was "dark haired person'

I used 'pretty blonde', and I think they wanted just "blonde" or "Blond person"

Basically driven towards taking gender out of every description, after all we live in a time when one political faction literally wants to eradicate the terms woman and female(but notice not man/male...but these same people call everyone else sexist)

For me, if the student I am describing is female, coed works, if she's female brunette words....I know people will give me the I'm out dated or old school or of course some form of ist. On that note my opinion is, excuse me if I don't believe the English language needs to be rewritten by a bunch of 'activists' and referring to a specific gender is some form of insult. If someone in my real life says they would like to be referred to as 'X' I will do that out of respect for them, however in my stories I know the gender of my characters and they are not offended, if the reader is well tough shit, but worth mentioning I've had no complaints on the matter.

That's interesting. I can see that being a helpful editing tool for something like a corporate memo, where there is value in NOT using language that implies generalizations about people and taking extra pains to treat everyone equally.

But in fiction this attitude creates problems. Fiction relies upon figurative language and generalizations. Words are loaded and freighted with meanings--sometimes meanings that are a little dangerous or transgressive, or misdirecting. That's a GOOD thing. It makes writing lively and interesting and fun. A vocabulary stripped of words that have playful, multiple, or even disturbing meanings is dull, unmusical, and unpoetic. The word "student" is not a substitute for the word "coed." Anybody who thinks "dark haired person" is better than "brunette" in a work of fiction knows nothing about the poetry of words. Same thing with "stay at home person" over "house wife."

But circling back to the OP's original question, sensitivity to this sort of thing probably is useful if you're a man trying to write from the point of view of a woman. I would imagine many young women would identify themselves as "students" and not "coeds" and if you started your story with the line, "It was Friday night, and I was a buxom, brunette 19-year-old coed, done with classes for the week, and I couldn't wait to get laid" a lot of women readers would roll their eyes and say: "male author."

 

[lovecraft68]

That's interesting. I can see that being a helpful editing tool for something like a corporate memo, where there is value in NOT using language that implies generalizations about people and taking extra pains to treat everyone equally.

But in fiction this attitude creates problems. Fiction relies upon figurative language and generalizations. Words are loaded and freighted with meanings--sometimes meanings that are a little dangerous or transgressive, or misdirecting. That's a GOOD thing. It makes writing lively and interesting and fun. A vocabulary stripped of words that have playful, multiple, or even disturbing meanings is dull, unmusical, and unpoetic. The word "student" is not a substitute for the word "coed." Anybody who thinks "dark haired person" is better than "brunette" in a work of fiction knows nothing about the poetry of words. Same thing with "stay at home person" over "house wife."

But circling back to the OP's original question, sensitivity to this sort of thing probably is useful if you're a man trying to write from the point of view of a woman. I would imagine many young women would identify themselves as "students" and not "coeds" and if you started your story with the line, "It was Friday night, and I was a buxom, brunette 19-year-old coed, done with classes for the week, and I couldn't wait to get laid" a lot of women readers would roll their eyes and say: "male author."

I agree it would be useful in an e-mail or professional sense where you're speaking to a group of people. But my point was to your second point, its not useful in a fictional creative sense. Then again, a lot of grammar programs, even Grammarly still lack when it comes to anything creative, especially dialogue where people will use slang, broken language and who knows what...in other words, how people really speak.

 

[lovecraft68]

No one wants to eradicate the terms woman and female, but plenty of reactionary sexists throw that accusation around.

The inclusiveness option may seem a little excessive, but if you were writing some official guidance it might prove useful for catching potentially problematic terms and challenging assumptions.

Like I said to Simon, something on the professional level would see a use for this because you're speaking in general and trying not to exclude anyone.

As for the other point, interesting you'd call me a reactionary sexist when I am in fact defending the female gender.
The people I am speaking of want to use birthing person instead of mother, and some are referring to women as menstruaters.
Is it the majority? Not at all, but media and politicians love giving the insane minority the attention to fuel their basis pro/anti on any topic.

Trust me, you're better off with 'sexist' me than the idiots you're trying to defend because they're just going to keep pushing it and you'll keep letting them until its too late.

So afraid you might offend the terminally woke, you'll sell yourself out at any cost to be 'included'

And that's your right. I reserve the right to call bullshit and push back against it. Someone has to.

 

[AlinaX]

Like I said to Simon, something on the professional level would see a use for this because you're speaking in general and trying not to exclude anyone.

As for the other point, interesting you'd call me a reactionary sexist when I am in fact defending the female gender.
The people I am speaking of want to use birthing person instead of mother, and some are referring to women as menstruaters.
Is it the majority? Not at all, but media and politicians love giving the insane minority the attention to fuel their basis pro/anti on any topic.

Trust me, you're better off with 'sexist' me than the idiots you're trying to defend because they're just going to keep pushing it and you'll keep letting them until its too late.

So afraid you might offend the terminally woke, you'll sell yourself out at any cost to be 'included'

And that's your right. I reserve the right to call bullshit and push back against it. Someone has to.

I didn't call you a reactionary sexist, I just aligned you with them. It would be nice it you weren't so quick to adopt their false arguments.

The term 'birthing person' is specific to people who give birth, and 'menstruator' is specific to people who menstruate. These terms are not replacements for 'woman', but the Rowlings of this world do like to pretend they are.

 

[JediJed]

So I'm currently working on a series in which I switch back and forth from the male's point of view to the female's point of view. The first story has been published - "First Day of Class" - and the second - "Releasing the Professor" - is pending and should come out soon. The first installment is narrated from the male perspective which is what I know.

The second though I narrated from the female perspective. I did so with fear and trepidation as I have not done that before. But the story is inspired by role-plays that I did on literotica with females, so I tried to capture what I heard/read through that experience as I wrote the story.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Basically driven towards taking gender out of every description, after all we live in a time when one political faction literally wants to eradicate the terms woman and female(but notice not man/male...but these same people call everyone else sexist)

I've said this before, and it really feels like you're not interested in listening on this topic, but I'm going to try once more: no, this isn't a thing.

Maybe if I explain it like this.

There's a shelter in my city called the Lost Dogs' Home. They take in strays, they give them vet care, and find homes for the ones they can.

If you found a stray cat that needed a home, or if you were looking to adopt one... would you take it to a place called the "Lost Dogs' Home"? Doesn't really sound like a cat-friendly place.

But they actually do take cats! I don't know the origins of the name, maybe once upon a time it was dogs-only, but the "Lost Dogs' Home" has been taking cats as well for many years.

(Up to there, all of this is real. The shelter exists, and it's called that, and they do take both cats and dogs.)

Now, suppose one day the people at the LDH decided that their name was a bit misleading, and to avoid giving the impression that cats weren't welcome, they decided to change to something like the "Lost Animals' Home"...

...and then, suppose that some asshole who hated cats twisted this into a story about how those nutty SJWs are trying to eradicate the word 'dog', and spread that story around, and a lot of people fell for that lie and got mad about it.

That's basically what's happening with this "they want to eradicate 'woman'" myth. Some organisations have changed their language to better describe the services they already provide, have been providing for years, so that anybody who might need those services knows they're welcome there. And certain people, for political ends, have chosen to spin a lie about that.

If you don't believe me though, try this: next time somebody tells you that story, ask them who the leaders of this "faction" are supposed to be. Then go look those "leaders" up and see how they actually talk. Chances are pretty good you'll find that these folk who supposedly want to erase "woman" are using that word all the time! They're not trying to erase it even from their own vocabulary, let alone anybody else's. All they're doing is changing the word choice in a few very specific situations where "woman" risks causing confusion.

Take my friends: they're a lesbian couple who have a kid. Legally, both of them are his mothers. But only one of them gave birth to him. Most of the time "mother" is fine for both of them, but just occasionally in a medical situation it's relevant that one of them carried that baby and one of them didn't. Then it's useful to have something like "birthing parent" for that. That's not political correctness gone mad, it's just making the language clearer.

 

[TheRedChamber]

But in fiction this attitude creates problems. Fiction relies upon figurative language and generalizations. Words are loaded and freighted with meanings--sometimes meanings that are a little dangerous or transgressive, or misdirecting. That's a GOOD thing. It makes writing lively and interesting and fun. A vocabulary stripped of words that have playful, multiple, or even disturbing meanings is dull, unmusical, and unpoetic. The word "student" is not a substitute for the word "coed." Anybody who thinks "dark haired person" is better than "brunette" in a work of fiction knows nothing about the poetry of words. Same thing with "stay at home person" over "house wife."

Phew, thanks for telling me. I'm off to rewrite my latest story - 'Sexually liberated dark haired stay-at-home people with vaginas Pt 11'

The term 'birthing person' is specific to people who give birth, and 'menstruator' is specific to people who menstruate. These terms are not replacements for 'woman', but the Rowlings of this world do like to pretend they are.

Well, there's basically two issues going on at the same time. The first is removing gender from a lot of words, especially jobs, where they are no longer deemed to be necessary. This is mostly fair enough although to me it adds a level of formality that wasn't there before - police officer sounds less friendly to me that policeman/woman. Similarly we don't really need blond and blonde to distinguish between men with fair hair and women with fair hair.

The other issue is the on-going redefinition of the word 'woman' from being based in biological sex to being based in cultural gender. Again, this is a good thing, but it does involve a certain amount of linguistic pain as everyone tries to figure out how to talk about biological things without using what are now gender-specific concepts. 'Birthing person' seems clumsy to me, perhaps it will become less so with familiarity but I wouldn't be surprised if a more elegant term came along in time. ('Menstruation' has always been an unpleasant sounding word to me, not because of what it represents, but because of that huge wadge of consonants in the middle followed by a sudden change of vowel direction between the u and a).

While I think a lot of what Rowling has said on the subject is foul, and while I support abortion rights, there's a very good example of the flux we are in linguistically. Rowling was seriously criticized by many people on the left for saying that 'woman' was a better word then 'people who menstruate'. But later, after the Roe-Wade decision many of the same people were quick to talk about how this was a serious blow to 'woman's rights' and, those on the right who'd been paying attention quickly responded "Don't you mean 'uterous-havers rights'" And, linguistically and logically according to the new concepts they're right, but, of course, the new word doesn't have the same hundred years of history and struggle that women's rights has and thus is less evocative.

 

[lovecraft68]

The new Supreme Court Justice was asked what is a woman and wouldn't answer the question.

That's a person who is going to making critical decisions for the people of this country for the rest of her life.

But yeah, keep telling me the gender isn't under attack

Hilarious how the same group of people who don't want to use the term woman are the same ones faking outrage over Roe V Wade. Pure hypocrisy and why no one takes them seriously.

I'd recommend Bill Walsh's What is a woman documentary for some interesting and thought provoking interviews on the topic(its not an opinion piece, he simply asks questions) but thought isn't welcome among the indoctrinated or the afraid to be unpopular crowd, now is it?

 

[TadOverdon]

MSWord is widely used in business and government. If I had to guess, the corporation is less concerned with any sociopolitical ideology than they are with offering a product feature that at least looks like it might solve some problem or offer organizational support for some policy and therefore score them an institutional sale.

I've found that all writing software includes a plethora of features that are so eager to help but so narrowly designed that I feel like I'm being nannied by a next-door neighbor who doesn't really care. But all the features are useful enough once in a while to shrug and put up with them rather than turn them off. Grammarly and I have a mutually abusive relationship that neither of us is willing to give up on.

But that's just me, someone else may prefer to get rid of as much of that "support" as possible when they work. It sounds like this inclusiveness feature might at least give me an occasional nudge when I'm confusing "blonde" and "blond" yet again.

 

[lovecraft68]

MSWord is widely used in business and government. If I had to guess, the corporation is less concerned with any sociopolitical ideology than they are with offering a product feature that at least looks like it might solve some problem or offer organizational support for some policy and therefore score them an institutional sale.

I've found that all writing software includes a plethora of features that are so eager to help but so narrowly designed that I feel like I'm being nannied by a next-door neighbor who doesn't really care. But all the features are useful enough once in a while to shrug and put up with them rather than turn them off. Grammarly and I have a mutually abusive relationship that neither of us is willing to give up on.

But that's just me, someone else may prefer to get rid of as much of that "support" as possible when they work. It sounds like this inclusiveness feature might at least give me an occasional nudge when I'm confusing "blonde" and "blond" yet again.

Interesting, I used blonde being a female character, I wonder if I type blond if it would still have the same effect?

But my interpreting of it isn't that its trying to separate male from female because the terms it wants to replace do specify gender. What it wants is to eliminate gender completely. House wife is an accurate term...same as if I said stay at home dad would indicate a male.

This is big tech's game of catering to the people who think there are 20+ and growing genders, for the twits who talk about identifying as birds now (these people exist you can't make it up) and I'm sure someone here would tell me science and biology would support humans identifying as avian. Pretty soon they'll be equine, bovine, amoebas and candle wax....and there will be fools who pat them on the head and say of course you are, just vote for us and support are pandering tokenistic attempts to make money from you and if you don't think I'm candle wax, well, your waxist! A candlephobe! Yankee Candle stands against wick supremacy reeeeeeeeee!

Okay, now I'm being flat out snarky.

Or am I? Because they're just going to keep devolving into lunacy and enabling said lunacy.

To be clear my core beliefs are be whoever you feel you are as long as you're not hurting yourself or anyone else. But that is about the self and individual. It changes when it becomes the same preaching and "you better believe" that these same people accuse Christianity or other groups of. When you spend all day telling us how you want to be equal, but then telling us how special you are and denigrating everyone who believes differently?

Well now you're just the typical intolerant, tolerant liberal. You don't judge me, but I can judge you cause I'll call you names and cancel you.

Imagine if these zealots went after things like domestic abuse, child abuse and other crimes the way they do in supporting the land of make believe?

 

[MillieDynamite]

Interesting, I used blonde being a female character, I wonder if I type blond if it would still have the same effect?

But my interpreting of it isn't that its trying to separate male from female because the terms it wants to replace do specify gender. What it wants is to eliminate gender completely. House wife is an accurate term...same as if I said stay at home dad would indicate a male.

This is big tech's game of catering to the people who think there are 20+ and growing genders, for the twits who talk about identifying as birds now (these people exist you can't make it up) and I'm sure someone here would tell me science and biology would support humans identifying as avian. Pretty soon they'll be equine, bovine, amoebas and candle wax....and there will be fools who pat them on the head and say of course you are, just vote for us and support are pandering tokenistic attempts to make money from you and if you don't think I'm candle wax, well, your waxist! A candlephobe! Yankee Candle stands against wick supremacy reeeeeeeeee!

Okay, now I'm being flat out snarky.

Or am I? Because they're just going to keep devolving into lunacy and enabling said lunacy.

To be clear my core beliefs are be whoever you feel you are as long as you're not hurting yourself or anyone else. But that is about the self and individual. It changes when it becomes the same preaching and "you better believe" that these same people accuse Christianity or other groups of. When you spend all day telling us how you want to be equal, but then telling us how special you are and denigrating everyone who believes differently?

Well now you're just the typical intolerant, tolerant liberal. You don't judge me, but I can judge you cause I'll call you names and cancel you.

Imagine if these zealots went after things like domestic abuse, child abuse and other crimes the way they do in supporting the land of make believe?

Generally, Blonde is for a female's hair color, while Blond is used for men. I guess for transgender, it would be determined if they were MTF for FTM. Not sure about how you use it for Queer.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

And Blondie is either a gunslinger or a new wave group.

 

[TadOverdon]

I always think "blonde" is a noun - "The tall blonde" is the same as "The tall blond woman."