PEEVE OF THE MOMENT: When people try to justify using the word "female" instead of "woman" by claiming that scientists use it this way. No we fucking don't. "Female" is an adjective, so the only time it can be used in substitution for a noun is when the noun has been immediately prior defined as having two or more modifiers, ie. "male and female snakes were hibernated for 12 weeks. After hibernation, females showed a higher rate of...". The same is true for other adjectives, such as pink and king in the context of salmon. Do you think a paper that spoke of "pinks" without ever defining WHAT THEY ARE would pass peer review? Well here's a hint: it wouldn't. Likewise with "females". The reviewers would not recommend it for publication because it doesn't define its model organism. So just stop trying to justify using "females" to refer to women using your ignorance as an argument, for fuck sake.
I suppose this belongs in the rants sub. But whatever.
Can I spread this, Nigel?
Apart from your own example, I will only accept its use from a Ferengi.
And that's because they don't know any better.
Quote from: Freeky on June 03, 2017, 08:32:50 PM
Can I spread this, Nigel?
Yes, absolutely. I also posted it on "It's Science, Stupid" (without the swears) if you want a Facebook-shareable version.
I mostly agree with you, BUT.... (deleted)
And here is where I sat here and typed out a reply about how I mostly agree, but point out what I believe to be a justifiable exception, and be all "Yeah! Totally! Except let me move the focus to this one specific nitpick I have and thereby derail your original important point that I again, TOTALLY AGREE WITH."
But then I remembered another post recently that pointed out how unhelpful that behavior is.
So instead I'll just say that I agree, and thank you once again for making me recognize patterns I have that I do not want to have.
Thanks, Trix!