The argument I'm making is that Vivien's claim rests on a general connotation of "female" held by American English speakers, and that by using such a word in place of "woman" you are effecting a subtle semantic shift that has broad socio-cultural implications. A similar case might with the word "girl", since using that subtly attaches a the diminutive sense of "girl" to women and thus undermines their agency on a number of levels through its continued use in discourse.

My claim is that this connotation of female is so foreign to such a vast majority of American English speakers that it simply does not exist in ordinary language and discourse among us. I offer a few examples that support (not prove) my claim below in my latest response to Vivien. Just because Vivien objects to it, and perhaps her sister, doesn't undermine my argument. It could be perceived as a bit of slippery slope, granted, since it sounds like I'm arguing from a majority, but that's really not it. It doesn't pass basic phenomenological muster- I've never encountered it before, and I am fairly knowledgeable and even have a passing familiarity (and sympathy) with the arguments and language of radical feminism.

I was utterly shocked to hear of this connotation, and stated with such sweeping and condescending authority. As were the other Americans on this thread. Look at how they respond. They never say "oh *eyeroll* this old canard again, you people are wrong". They all say they simply have not heard of it before, and repeatedly, and that they don't understand. Celia even attempts to untangle the ground on which Vivien rests her objections below, but the latter keeps vacillating.

In any case, there is an element of δημοκρατια to Vivien's argument. I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly if I had been familiar with the connotations, or even if I had heard it brought up more often. It seems like that connotation is incredibly archaic I think and only exists for a few people. But it is either a part of ordinary language and discourse or not, and I really can't see that it is.

(Also, lastly, isn't English a second language for Aeryn and Vivien both? I could be mistaken, and it's irrelevant to the main argument I made just above, but still.)




This is very interesting. Generally it tracks with my experience very well. There are definitely some slightly different usages between "female" and "woman", though none as Vivien articulated, I think. There is certainly a more general and abstract sense to "female", I think, and it's definitely more commonly used in the plural with humans. It's not unheard of in the singular, though. I think it's not uncommon in the African American community incidentally, and I don't think it has any negative overtones, though I could be wrong about that.

I wonder if the use of the article is relevant here. My guess is that you will get more results relating to animals and biology if you use the definite article "the female" and a slightly more even spread between human and non-human with the indefinite article "a female". I think there might be a carryover from Indo-European grammar that gives a noun paired with the article a generic sense. I know Greek definitely does it (something like ὁ ἄνθρωπος can just mean "man" in general), does German also do it?

Also, I decided to remove the article entirely and simply google "female that". Since "is" often carries a generic sense it was best to use a relative, and one that can relate to man, animal, or object equally well in common parlance, and let the internet decide. I didn't bother to count, but it seems like at least one half of the results are referring to humans, maybe as much as two thirds. It's still a bit awkward sounding though to my ear though, and no matter how you query the singular it still gets split at least 50/50 between humans and animals, so your observation is definitely on the money.

I fear the term feminist carries such a negative connotation sometimes because it seems that it's out to tell people what they are allowed to think about females.
If I want to watch a film where the female is nothing more than the pretty, dumb eye candy next to the hero, I'll do that. Because, ya know, such females exist. That's not the same as telling every woman out there to do or be the same. And then after I turn this film off I watch Ripley kick alien ass as good as any male character could have. Just don't tell me I have to decide, can't have both or that every film will have a Katniss now. Females are pretty and are ugly, they are smart and dumb. Just like movie characters. And just like guys.