What? The Ultimate Insult: “Female” is a Historically Negative Word

BLACKDAY/shutterstock.com

For thousands of years, we’ve had a way to describe people – male and female. These are not insults. These are not ways to take away from a person. They simply explain a person’s biological gender so that basic inferences can be made.

Now, a professor of English at one university has decided that the word “female” is a historically negative word.

Excuse me?

James Bromley, a professor at Ohio’s Miami University has been teaching his students not to use negative words. That includes the use of “female.” You know, because anyone can be female if they simply believe it in their heart.

Within the English Professor’s syllabus for Seventeenth-Century English Literature, he provides critical advice: “Avoid using the words ‘female’ or ‘females’ as nouns when you mean woman or women.”

Wait, what?

According to the professor, when such a word is used as a noun, it has “historically often carried deprecatory connotations.”

No, that doesn’t sound right. No one can take offense at being called a female when they are, biologically, a female.

Bromley doesn’t want you to feel bad, though. “Even the best writers make mistakes. Avoiding them requires leaving plenty of time to draft and revise.” He even goes as far as suggesting that students enlist the help of others to carefully proofread their work. After all, we wouldn’t accidentally want to assign someone a gender that has been historically deprecatory, would we?

We suddenly live in a world where everyone is terrified to gender someone. Even the Department of Health has apologized for gendering people when using the term “mother.”

The madness has to end. The liberals are trying to change the way in which we identify one another. We can no longer refer to anyone as their biological gender. We must use the gender in which a person wishes to be referenced.

Perhaps because we don’t know the gender in which historical women identified themselves, we cannot accurately call them females? Perhaps there were also historical men who would have preferred to have been identified as women, too? Thus, using “female” excluded too many people?

No, this doesn’t sound right, either. We would have heard of such a thing happening. Shakespeare or Chaucer or someone would have covered the topic of being identified as a different gender.

This is all due to the liberals wanting to be so inclusive that they are going to redefine words, change historical context, and even erase certain aspects of history if they don’t align with their queer agendas.

The professor may want to take a look through the literature that he’s teaching. There were some powerful female characters throughout the 17th century. And female characters were female. Lady Macbeth, Cleopatra, Beatrice, Celia, Bianca, Juliet – the list goes on and on.

Apparently, though, we’re not supposed to talk of such things. They are women. Not females.

The liberals may have to publish a dictionary on the terms we’re not allowed to use anymore because it’s starting to get confusing. The problem with such a request is that the liberals can’t even agree upon a list of terms that is offensive.

Just give it a few weeks or months. Another English professor will likely claim that “woman” and “women” are offensive.