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

[LilyWaters]

I'm going to clarify my above comments by saying that if it came across I'm denigrating trans people or others, I'm not. If you have dysphoria or feel you're not who you should be or meant to be, then of course you do whatever you feel you need to be who you want to be and I support everyone trying to be themselves in this world.

But it goes south in two ways beyond the person and how they're living.

First-this need and notion that the rest of the world needs to bend the knee to everything down to rewriting the language and demonizing straight people or attacking existing genders.

Next is the wanting to be understood accepted included, be like everyone else...but then spend 24/7 telling everyone how special you are, and responding to any question with pure unbridled hate and calling people ists and phobes. I have seen countless examples, online, in real life and here where a person comes right and says they don't understand, and they don't get an explanation they get hate. Because of course 70 year old person who grew up in a very different time is supposed to inherently know and understand transgenderism.

But there is no attempt at education, just intolerance and judgement while crying they're victims of such

But the worst is the legit situations and issues are then picked up by woke and it becomes a trend and a joke. Gender is now a game. Instances all over the net of sick fuck parents 'regendering' their five year old children and posting it all on Tiktok to get cheers from equally sick people. That's abuse in the real world, but say that and oh, guess we're all phobes.

My grand daughter wants to be a shark, any recommendations for doctors that can put fins and a tail on her? I mean at 5 she clearly knows what she wants to be.

A straight-or I suppose even 'just gay'-man or women walks into second grade class room and starts talking about their genitals and who they're attracted to? That's an issue and will be treated that way. The person says "Oh I'm teaching transgenderism" and its oh, cool, teach my 8 year old who spends all night thinking about fortnight and their toys all about sex! Yay! Progressives!!!

Now referring to Pedophiles as "minor attracted people' and acting like they're okay to be that way. California is passing laws to make it easier to molest minors, but I guess anyone against that is an evil conservative or fill in the blank name.

Like anything else do what you do but keep it to doing it to you. You want to preach, you want to judge, you want to take your tiny percentage of like minded people and try to tell 98% of the world they're wrong, and we have to think its all awesome or be attacked and name called by hate filled lunch mob of jackals? Then don't expect the understanding you pretend you want. Because you don't want inclusion you want oh, woe is me, martyr points

Recent thread some dipstick used the term slut in an unflattering way, and got an earful for it. But here comes someone squealing "cis men have no right...."

Let's review that shall we, class? A person expressing outrage over someone using a slur, then name calls that person in the same derogatory way because THEY'RE way is okay. Its cool to hate straight-sorry cis-men, right? Gotta go with the trends.

The irony of it being cool to hate anyone Christian because they judge and condemn and control people by the far left who wants to judge spew hate and force their juvenile no one can tell them know mentality is just rich.

End of the day these people are miserable, full of hate and self loathing and need to project it onto everyone else.

If the people in this thread don't feel they fall under anything I said, good for you, you're a sane minority in an insane out of control majority.

Call me the names, judge me hate me, its all good. I speak my mind because its mine, and I'm a person not an ass kissing fake persona. To few are willing to do that these days in fear of judgement from whatever faction they piss off. I know me, the people close to me in my real life know me, and they are all who matters. In no other time has being popular meant that you're the one who's wrong more than it does now. If you're popular today, you're a member of someone's cult.

Everything after the first two sentences in this post is just straight up moral panic.

 

[lovecraft68]

In my next example of women no longer existing:
Seems they're revisiting Joan of Arc and Joan, one of the most bad ass female icons in history is now going to be non binary with they them pronouns.

Because back in her day they were using those, but yes ladies, your female icons should no longer be female...no attack on gender or history.

This has led to Rowling trying to get women to rise up and stop allowing the destruction of their gender. But of course we all know Rowling is just an awful awful person because silly woman thinks there's only two genders and actual women still exist. Whatta bitch, huh?

Love how she's been cancelled by the mob, but still making money hand over first and the new Harry Potter video game sold out in a heartbeat. My daughter bought one, cause you know, silly thing still thinks she's female and doesn't know she's supposed to hate Rowling for the audacity of her free speech opinions. Going to have to talk to her about that. Shit, I keep thinking of her as a her. I need to go get that gender studies degree.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Everything after the first two sentences in this post is just straight up moral panic.

I support Lovecrafts right for moral panic. You can't say some can have a right to sexual confusion but others must change to support them in everything and every way.

 

[AlinaX]

First-this need and notion that the rest of the world needs to bend the knee to everything down to rewriting the language and demonizing straight people or attacking existing genders.

Language is forever evolving. It's a living thing. As we explore gender identity and attraction in ways that have not been possible before, it's inevitable that language will evolve to enable accurate description.

But demonising straight people? Attacking existing genders? You seem a little obsessed and oversensitive.

Next is the wanting to be understood accepted included, be like everyone else...but then spend 24/7 telling everyone how special you are, and responding to any question with pure unbridled hate and calling people ists and phobes. I have seen countless examples, online, in real life and here where a person comes right and says they don't understand, and they don't get an explanation they get hate. Because of course 70 year old person who grew up in a very different time is supposed to inherently know and understand transgenderism.

Sometimes people who ask are asking genuinely, but it's utterly depressing how many people ask without any interest in actually learning. Plus, the resources are out there. It's not hard to do a little self-education.

And so what if people want to talk about themselves? So what if *some* people respond with unbridled hate? Welcome to the world.

But there is no attempt at education, just intolerance and judgement while crying they're victims of such

Oh, blah. I'm sick of people displaying intolerance and being judgemental about diversity and inclusivity in education. If we actually educated people properly at school, we wouldn't need to fight the whole, "There are only two sexes! I learned all about it in school..."

But the worst is the legit situations and issues are then picked up by woke and it becomes a trend and a joke. Gender is now a game. Instances all over the net of sick fuck parents 'regendering' their five year old children and posting it all on Tiktok to get cheers from equally sick people. That's abuse in the real world, but say that and oh, guess we're all phobes.

I... have no idea what you're on about.

My grand daughter wants to be a shark, any recommendations for doctors that can put fins and a tail on her? I mean at 5 she clearly knows what she wants to be.

Sigh. For someone who insists they're not a transphobe, you really do love the games they play. Go on, tell us the attack helicopter joke next.

A straight-or I suppose even 'just gay'-man or women walks into second grade class room and starts talking about their genitals and who they're attracted to? That's an issue and will be treated that way.

Um, I guess. Not sure of the relevance.

The person says "Oh I'm teaching transgenderism"

No one says that.

and its oh, cool, teach my 8 year old who spends all night thinking about fortnight and their toys all about sex! Yay! Progressives!!!

Um, again, no.

Now referring to Pedophiles as "minor attracted people' and acting like they're okay to be that way. California is passing laws to make it easier to molest minors, but I guess anyone against that is an evil conservative or fill in the blank name.

Relevance?

Like anything else do what you do but keep it to doing it to you.

What's really interesting about this is that far too many people in positions of power are saying, "You do you - but not that."

You want to preach, you want to judge, you want to take your tiny percentage of like minded people and try to tell 98% of the world they're wrong, and we have to think its all awesome or be attacked and name called by hate filled lunch mob of jackals? Then don't expect the understanding you pretend you want. Because you don't want inclusion you want oh, woe is me, martyr points

Wondering which snowflake planet you're from. This 'tiny percentage' of people gets far too much utter shit from the 98%.

Recent thread some dipstick used the term slut in an unflattering way, and got an earful for it. But here comes someone squealing "cis men have no right...."

Let's review that shall we, class? A person expressing outrage over someone using a slur, then name calls that person in the same derogatory way because THEY'RE way is okay. Its cool to hate straight-sorry cis-men, right? Gotta go with the trends.

How dare people who have been repeatedly hurt lash out like that!

The irony of it being cool to hate anyone Christian because they judge and condemn and control people by the far left who wants to judge spew hate and force their juvenile no one can tell them know mentality is just rich.

I don't have a major problem with Christianity. I was raised that way. But the Christian far-right is an organised and well funded hate movement.

End of the day these people are miserable, full of hate and self loathing and need to project it onto everyone else.

~ blinks ~

 

[Voboy]

Wondering which snowflake planet you're from.

You can say that again.

 

[MillieDynamite]

You can say that again.

His planet is Earth, the same as the rest of it. It is place of a humanity this complex and vast in its dichotomy of personalities, positions, views, relationships, religions, politics, and acceptances of others. We come from a world filled with Mother Terresa's and Ted Bundy's. John F. Kennedy's and Adolph Hitler's. Saints and sinners walk shoulder to shoulder, there is bound to be a bump or two in the road. There will always be issues in the world, if we didn't have those issues, if everything was peaches and cream, happy ever after, what would write about. I'm not big on conflict, however, I stand my ground against sexism, racism, and hate. Misogyny and bigotry as attitudes are inevitable, allowing people so inclined to have power is regrettable, condemning the hate my a responsibility. But people are blending of everything they have learned and all their experiences. We shouldn't add to hate as battle against it. I don't hate the hater, I despise their attitudes and wonder why they have them.

But all of this has little to do with men writing from a woman's point of view.

 

[Voboy]

But all of this has little to do with men writing from a woman's point of view.

You can say that again.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

<snip> We come from a world filled with Mother Terresa's and Ted Bundy's. John F. Kennedy's and Adolph Hitler's. <snip>

Now, now, JFK wasn't that bad of a guy.

 

[LilyWaters]

I support Lovecrafts right for moral panic. You can't say some can have a right to sexual confusion but others must change to support them in everything and every way.

A moral panic is, by definition, a sociological panic based on misinformation.

Lovecraft absolutely has the right to live in fear if he wants to, but the fantastical things that he believes in based on Tik Tok videos (teachers tell students about their genitals! Five year olds are having gender reassignment surgeries!) are not only complete nonsense, but incredibly hurtful. The things he is afraid of are simply not happening. His post could have been written during the Satanic panic. People's inability to take a breath and look to reliable sources for their information and actually understand and learn from past moral panics is incredibly disheartening.

Like - live in fear of the increasing number of natural disasters due to climate change, or the recent rise of authoritarian governments, or our inability to make substantial gains in the opioid crisis. Not nonsense urban legends.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm going to clarify my above comments by saying that if it came across I'm denigrating trans people or others, I'm not. If you have dysphoria or feel you're not who you should be or meant to be, then of course you do whatever you feel you need to be who you want to be and I support everyone trying to be themselves in this world.

I don't believe you hate trans people, or my conversations with you would be VERY different. I do believe that you are gullible on this topic, in a way that is weird for somebody who keeps warning about how the Internet wants people to hate.

I have seen countless examples, online, in real life and here where a person comes right and says they don't understand, and they don't get an explanation they get hate. Because of course 70 year old person who grew up in a very different time is supposed to inherently know and understand transgenderism. But there is no attempt at education, just intolerance and judgement while crying they're victims of such

I have seen plenty of times here where somebody asked an honest question about transgender stuff and got a friendly explanation, from Stickygirl or me or various others. Sticky has a whole thread for people to "ask a mtf transgender person" with over 2000 posts! GoldenCompulsion recently set up an "ask a ftm" version of the same thing, and the discussion in those threads has been overwhelmingly respectful. There's me and others answering questions about pronouns. Here in AH and in other forums on the site, I've researched and posted a ton of info on topics like "trans women in sport". If you can link me to an example where somebody asked an honest question here and got hate, I'd like to see it.

OTOH, I don't feel obliged to give a polite response when somebody leads with hostility, or spreads falsehoods about trans people because they were more interested in the sound of their own voice than getting their facts right.

Nobody expects people to know this stuff instinctively, just to show a bit of courtesy and find out before telling "jokes" about how trans people are pedos who should be beaten up.

But it does take time and mental energy to do that kind of education. I'm always happy to do it for people who genuinely want to learn, but if all that has made so little impression on you that you don't even remember it, that's pretty damn disheartening.

But the worst is the legit situations and issues are then picked up by woke and it becomes a trend and a joke. Gender is now a game. Instances all over the net of sick fuck parents 'regendering' their five year old children and posting it all on Tiktok to get cheers from equally sick people. That's abuse in the real world, but say that and oh, guess we're all phobes.

Have you actually seen these Tiktoks? Or are you taking it on trust from folk like Matt Walsh that people are doing this, maybe with a few clips edited to mislead viewers?

My grand daughter wants to be a shark, any recommendations for doctors that can put fins and a tail on her? I mean at 5 she clearly knows what she wants to be.

Who are these doctors who are doing transgender surgery on five-year-olds? When has that happened?

(There is an actual problem with doctors doing unnecessary surgery on the genitals of kids far too young to consent, but that's about intersex, not trans.)

A straight-or I suppose even 'just gay'-man or women walks into second grade class room and starts talking about their genitals and who they're attracted to? That's an issue and will be treated that way. The person says "Oh I'm teaching transgenderism" and its oh, cool, teach my 8 year old who spends all night thinking about fortnight and their toys all about sex! Yay! Progressives!!!

Those stories always turn out to be something like this:

Kids read a book about princes marrying princesses. Teacher mentions that it's okay for princes to marry princes too. OMG TEACHERS PROMOTE GAY BUTTSEX TO SECOND GRADERS.

Or:

Teacher points at a doll and says "this part is called your genitals, if somebody touches you there you should tell your parents or a teacher, even if the person touching you says it's a big secret". OMG TEACHERS TALK TO SECOND GRADERS ABOUT GENITALS.

Now referring to Pedophiles as "minor attracted people' and acting like they're okay to be that way.

Who is saying those things?

California is passing laws to make it easier to molest minors

Which laws?

Recent thread some dipstick used the term slut in an unflattering way, and got an earful for it. But here comes someone squealing "cis men have no right...."

Let's review that shall we, class? A person expressing outrage over someone using a slur, then name calls that person in the same derogatory way because THEY'RE way is okay. Its cool to hate straight-sorry cis-men, right? Gotta go with the trends.

"Cis" isn't a slur. It's just the opposite of "trans" and has been for more than two thousand years, long before either of those were attached to "gender". You can find it in chemistry textbooks: here's a paper from 1987 about cis and trans versions of a chemical in food. You can find terms like "cisatlantic" and "cislunar" in old newspapers and dictionaries.

Seems they're revisiting Joan of Arc and Joan, one of the most bad ass female icons in history is now going to be non binary with they them pronouns.

Who are "they"?

Last thing. I've spent a LOT of time on this discussion, and before I spend any more I need to know something:

Is there any point in me keeping on trying to have this kind of conversation?

If I (and others) keep on posting the kind of education that you say pro-trans people ought to be doing, as we have been doing for years, are you going to keep on saying that nobody's doing it? Or are you going to read some of that info, and acknowledge that a bunch of us have been making a ton of effort here?

Are you going to come back in a month or two and for a third time bring up how KBJ didn't want to "define a woman" in the hearings, without acknowledging what I've said about why that would have been unprofessional? Or are you going to at least consider what's been said there these last two times, and if you don't agree with it, at least talk about why not?

Are you going to keep telling us about the big bad nebulous unnameable "they", without giving enough info for us to check it out? Or are you going to check it out yourself before getting lathered up about it, and then if it still seems like a problem, share that info so we can talk about real facts?

If it's going to keep on the way it has done, it just isn't a good use of my time to do this. If that's the case, I'd appreciate you telling me so I can go do something else and not feel bad about giving up.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Now, now, JFK wasn't that bad of a guy.

OTOH Mother Teresa wasn't that great...

 

[XerXesXu]

An interesting example of politico-linguistic warfare. It's always worth remembering that whoever wins, no change in language will change the underlying reality. People will always be who they always were. If you believe a change, or not, in language will benefit society in general, tell your opponents how it will benefit them.

Here's an example of moral panic:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...chaplain-said-pupils-disagree-woke-dogma.html
He's an orthodox Anglican.
Was he treated fairly?

Here's an example of what happens when nobody's interested in discussing the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Roman.
She's a practising Catholic.
Was she treated fairly?

 

[Bubo_bubo]

OTOH Mother Teresa wasn't that great...

That was more or less the implication of my comment (sometimes I'm too subtle for my own good).

 

[Bubo_bubo]

An interesting example of politico-linguistic warfare. It's always worth remembering that whoever wins, no change in language will change the underlying reality. People will always be who they always were. If you believe a change, or not, in language will benefit society in general, tell your opponents how it will benefit them.

Here's an example of moral panic:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...chaplain-said-pupils-disagree-woke-dogma.html
He's an orthodox Anglican.
Was he treated fairly?

The moral panic mostly seems on the side of the Daily Heil and the rest of the right wing UK press (and some Christian organisations). I can't find a single article about it in the Guardian for instance, and the single article I found from what could be called the other side is actually quite measured:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/...imination-unfair-dismissal-christian-concern/
But maybe that was your point.

Secondly very nice of him to invoke his beliefs. He can have them. Those beliefs and the way he expresses them seem to make him not very well adapted to the role of a chaplain (which is more about pastoral duties than preaching), or any kind of role where children might come to him with their problems for advice, as concluded by both his secular superiors (at the school) and his religious superior (the bishop).
So he seems to have been treated fairly in that particular case. And given far too much attention by the British pearl-clutching regressive right-wing press.

Here's an example of what happens when nobody's interested in discussing the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Roman.
She's a practising Catholic.
Was she treated fairly?

Nice. Note that she doesn't let her religion get in the way to advocate for the rights of minorities (including LGBT people), though like any politician, she has to make compromises.

Though I don't what matter you think it is that nobody is interested in discussing. The fact she's the first transgender person elected to the Congress of the Philippines is certainly mentioned a lot, and she seems to be quite aware of her trailblazing role in that regard.

As for being treated fairly - in what regard?

 

[XerXesXu]

or any kind of role where children might come to him with their problems for advice, as concluded by both his secular superiors (at the school) and his religious superior (the bishop).

Do you believe those children who came to him were the 'wrong sort of children'? I recall during my indoctrination that many of my fellows swallowed conventional religious teaching hook line and sinker as the word of God. Who should provide pastoral care? If he confirmed that those teachings were the teaching of his church, and the Word of God no less, why would his employer and licensor report him as a potential terrorist? If you were the Bishop would you have done that? Do you think that was consistent with their own beliefs and teachings, or do you think they acted in a moral panic?

 

[XerXesXu]

Though I don't what matter you think it is that nobody is interested in discussing. The fact she's the first transgender person elected to the Congress of the Philippines is certainly mentioned a lot, and she seems to be quite aware of her trailblazing role in that regard.

As for being treated fairly - in what regard?

Here, in the Philippines, nobody I know would be interested in discussing the matter. Only the most highly educated are even aware of the words and concepts. I have about 40 nephews and nieces, some are at various points on the spectrum of fluidity. They've expressed their gender identity from an early age, and that's been accepted, as a matter of course, by their parents, sibs, and the community generally. It's a non-issue. This is a predominantly Catholic country, yet, in Bataan, a catholic region, she's been able to stand and be elected without her gender ID being raised as an issue, it's a curiosity, not an issue. That's pretty fair of the Philippino electorate.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

Do you believe those children who came to him were the 'wrong sort of children'?

I don't know what you're talking about. This is a weird question since in principle all of the children might come to him.

I recall during my indoctrination that many of my fellows swallowed conventional religious teaching hook line and sinker as the word of God. Who should provide pastoral care?

If it depended on me, in schools: no one. Religion should be kept out of schools, and any religious education the affair of parents and the churches they belong to (though education about religions should be part of the programme). No public money should go to any kind of religious education.

But otherwise a more caring kind of reverend/priest, one that's more about the love of Christ, and less about judging and condemning behaviours.

If he confirmed that those teachings were the teaching of his church, and the Word of God no less, why would his employer and licensor report him as a potential terrorist?

A. He wasn't, a report might have been initiated but apparently not finalised.
B. There is a duty to report, which might incline people to err on the side of caution, and it is apparently in the guidelines that any kind of extremist rhetoric should be signalled.
C. It's not just Islamic extremists that can get violent. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If you were the Bishop would you have done that?

The Bishop didn't report him as a potential terrorist.

Do you think that was consistent with their own beliefs and teachings, or do you think they acted in a moral panic?

They put the interests of children in a potentially vulnerable position above any kind of judgement about the morality of beliefs and teachings, which I think is commendable.

I mean the man is clearly not concerned about the well-being of the children and is more concerned about the morality of any teachings. And thus best kept away from children.

Better have Geraldine Roman as chaplain:

She said she started feeling different at the early age of two or three, and there were moments while she was growing up Catholic that she felt conflicted if she was indeed committing sins against God.

"When people would judge me and tell me, ‘Oh that’s a sin. God does not like that.’ But deep inside, I knew that I was simply being true to myself. Can anything be wrong with being true to oneself?," she said.

 

[XerXesXu]

I don't know what you're talking about. This is a weird question since in principle all of the children might come to him.

That sums up the problem. Why should the concerns of the children who came to him be disregarded, why weren't they special? Why should he have misled them about the teaching of the Church? They didn't try to mislead the African bishops at the recent Synod, so why should those over whom they have pastoral care be misled?

For formalities sake: By preference, I write in third person omniscient. I use what I've seen females do and what I've heard them say in related situations to inform my description of their perspective, I can do no other.

 

[XerXesXu]

A. He wasn't, a report might have been initiated but apparently not finalised.
B. There is a duty to report, which might incline people to err on the side of caution, and it is apparently in the guidelines that any kind of extremist rhetoric should be signalled.
C. It's not just Islamic extremists that can get violent. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The Bishop didn't report him as a potential terrorist.

They put the interests of children in a potentially vulnerable position above any kind of judgement about the morality of beliefs and teachings, which I think is commendable.

I mean the man is clearly not concerned about the well-being of the children and is more concerned about the morality of any teachings. And thus best kept away from children.

Better have Geraldine Roman as chaplain:

I hear your interesting observations on religion and its teaching, you'll appreciate that many others have different views.
Others can read the article and form their own impression of Dr Randall's claims, I can't personally vouch for them, this is a newspaper report. It does relate that:

'Earlier, after deciding that Dr Randall’s sermon was ‘harmful to LGBT’ students, the school flagged him to Prevent, a government proramme which normally identifies those at risk of radicalisation.

Police investigated but said he posed ‘no counter terrorism risk, or risk of radicalisation’.'

Prevent is part of the Government's anti-terrorism strategy. Readers can make of that what they will.

Why were the interests of one group of vulnerable students prioritised over another group of vulnerable students?

‘Despite his opinion being supported by scripture and elements of canon law it is his apparent opposition to consider or accept a different approach to relationships which is of concern in a 21st-century Church of England. This is a reputational risk to be managed by any parish and diocese to which Rev’d Randall is connected.’

This sounds like moral panic to me, but again, others can make of that what they will.

Geraldine is much the same sort of Catholic as my wife, very selective, and most of the Muslims are also very selective. You'd think they were coreligionists. Both Geraldine and my wife are culturally Filipino and would be supportive of any vulnerable person in their pastoral care, that's because they don't insist that priority be given to any particular group, they're accepting and inclusive.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

That sums up the problem. Why should the concerns of the children who came to him be disregarded, why weren't they special? Why should he have misled them about the teaching of the Church? They didn't try to mislead the African bishops at the recent Synod, so why should those over whom they have pastoral care be misled?

Then he should maybe have counselled those children that single claimed child in private, rather than give a sermon on the subject addressed to all children. Which is what apparently happened. Again proof that he didn't particularly care about the well-being of children but more about voicing his convictions.

It also shows my main point. Religion should have no place in schools, except as a subject of study.

For formalities sake: By preference, I write in third person omniscient. I use what I've seen females do and what I've heard them say in related situations to inform my description of their perspective, I can do no other.

By preference, one should not refer to women and girls as 'females' (used as a noun) in anything but a purely scientific context. It's seen as rather reductive.

 

[XerXesXu]

Then he should maybe have counselled those children that single claimed child in private, rather than give a sermon on the subject addressed to all children. Which is what apparently happened. Again proof that he didn't particularly care about the well-being of children but more about voicing his convictions.

It also shows my main point. Religion should have no place in schools, except as a subject of study.

Then he should maybe have counselled those children that single claimed child in private, rather than give a sermon on the subject addressed to all children. Which is what apparently happened. Again proof that he didn't particularly care about the well-being of children but more about voicing his convictions.

It also shows my main point. Religion should have no place in schools, except as a subject of study.

By preference, one should not refer to women and girls as 'females' (used as a noun) in anything but a purely scientific context. It's seen as rather reductive.

By preference, one should not refer to women and girls as 'females' (used as a noun) in anything but a purely scientific context. It's seen as rather reductive.

I'll leave it to anyone who finds those observations interesting to pursue this with you further.

 

[lovecraft68]

One of my all time favorite comments from here was left on an erotic horror story I pulled a year or so after I posted it to turn it into a novel. There's a part where the stories namesake goes on an epic rant about men and misogyny which segued into an equally venomous tirade about religion being created by men for men to control everyone else, especially women.

The comment was "You're a god hating man hating cunt. Must be a dyke because I can't see how any man out there would want a piece of your rancid twat."

Not sure if my female POV was that good-scorned woman is my fav to write-or some men can't accept the fact there are men out there who hate certain types of men.

Regardless, I gave myself a well played, sir, because to me when I can inspire anger from that type of source it makes me happy.

 

[Futakween]

In my opinion, males can't write female characters very good unless their target audience is the male audience. Males don't know how to write female pleasure because they often come from a society where female pleasure is taboo; as a result, the stories written are often geared toward pleasing the male, and the female gaining pleasure from pleasing. In other words, males write females on how they are viewed in society; where as, females write female characters based off of not only experience but also defining what society expects and/or desires for a female to be.

Whether it be erotica, fan fiction, fiction, I can't think of a single story of a female point of view written by a male that I enjoyed.

 

[lovecraft68]

Then he should maybe have counselled those children that single claimed child in private, rather than give a sermon on the subject addressed to all children. Which is what apparently happened. Again proof that he didn't particularly care about the well-being of children but more about voicing his convictions.

It also shows my main point. Religion should have no place in schools, except as a subject of study.

By preference, one should not refer to women and girls as 'females' (used as a noun) in anything but a purely scientific context. It's seen as rather reductive.

The same people who think prayer shouldn't be allowed in school-I'm in agreement on that-are the same people who is a Muslim child wants to put down their prayer rug they're fine with that, because its not about religion its about the hatred of Christianity coupled with the fear of denying anyone 'brown' for fear of being a racist or Islamophobic, so until their is equality in all rules rather than exceptions and pick and choose, we will get division over it, but let's face it, division is what this country is now all about from the top to the mindless masses. All or none...not a hard concept.

None of these people care about anything but targeting what they hate while pushing their hate. I know my post sounds a bit crude, but that's what honesty and being unbiased looks like these days, its always an attack rather than a legit point

As for referring to females as females, thanks for proving my point about trying to remove the gender because you're making my point.

Calling a woman female is not an attack any more than calling a man male. Unless of course you're framing it in a derogatory way and in that light anything can be an insult.

My wife discussed the word "hon" once with me when I asked if she thought it was some type of slur. Her response was it depends from who and how. She works with an older man who has to use a cane. She'll grab him a cup of tea in the morning so he doesn't have to get up, and he always says thank you followed by hon, sometimes sweetheart, but my wife isn't bothered because his tone is appreciative and at his age that wasn't considered an insult or pandering.

On the other hand when one of her co-workers once told her, "cute you think that, hon" Now that is an insult in tone and usage.

This is common sense for anyone in the real world as opposed to the land of needing safety pins for harsh words and needing to always have something to cry over. As I said in another post somewhere its hilarious the people who cry about being labeled are the ones labeling everything.

LC, don't use the term female.....got that you Cis male?

Makes sense...if you're five.

 

[AlinaX]

Don't be disingenuous. No one's saying not to use female as an adjective. The advice is not to use female as a noun outside of technical contexts.