I admit this is more a visceral than a reasoned response, but these terms seem so species-independent: "males" and "females" could just as easily be hamsters or lab rats as human beings.
I much prefer talking about "men" and "women", particularly as these terms (to my mind anyway) imply personhood, adulthood and all that goes with them.
But again, that's just me. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
re: species neutral diction
M and F and I refer to sex traits, ergo reproductive capacities of a subject at maturity. I can think of few instances of political significance, in either private or public arena, that do not derive from factional determination and control of sexual reproductive capacity. In other words, these assignment AND identification is a functional value.
"Man" and "woman" are gender assignments of speech laden with meanings, apart from syntactical agreement. On this we agree, identification of a subject (or object) with either assignment "implies" a lot more about the subject articulated than its sex to speakers/hearers. In other words, assignment != identification. Identification predicates psychological value(s) rather than functional value(s).
In my experience, I have found that differentiating the sets in usage very useful when explaing to my child elementary politics, biology, and courtesy among people. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
M and F and I refer to sex traits, ergo reproductive capacities of a subject at maturity. I can think of few instances of political significance, in either private or public arena, that do not derive from factional determination and control of sexual reproductive capacity. In other words, these assignment AND identification is a functional value. "Man" and "woman" are gender assignments of speech laden with meanings, apart from syntactical agreement. On this we agree, identification of a subject (or object) with either assignment "implies" a lot more about the subject articulated than its sex to speakers/hearers. In other words, assignment != identification. Identification predicates psychological value(s) rather than functional value(s).
why is semiotics so sexy?
bizarre meta-languages turn me on... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I associate, as you say: viscerally, "men" and "women" with physical characteristics and "male" and "female" with behavior and cultural roles with personhood, adulthood, and etc. off on yet other axis.
Perhaps because "males" and "females" are species independent? Or is it more that "men" and "women" are tagged with a higher emotive content in my association pathways?
Not going anywhere with this. Just my reaction.
"males" and "females" could just as easily be hamsters or lab rats as human beings.
That was not entirely accidental.
When analysing data, I normally fall into a slightly clinical style (which is not, despite the usual assumption, the same thing as "neutral"). I find that this helps me consider the data on its own merits, so to speak. Or perhaps that is simply a cultural illusion instilled in me during my training...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
