Many people speaking in English are not native speakers, even when they communicate fluently - such as yours truly.

I use "Males" or "Men", and "Females" or "Women" interchangeably. This is the first time I see anyone indicating there is a connotation for objectification there.

> This is the first time I see anyone indicating there is a connotation for objectification there.

Happens to all of us, we are all inside our small information bubbles. The curious engage in broader conversation, such as us on HN.

Let me drop some links to illustrate that this is not just my personal (mis-) understanding:

- "Female, woman: Revised guidance noting that some people object to the use of female as a descriptor for women because it can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender identity. It can also sometimes carry misogynistic tones that may vary in severity by race, class and other factors." AP Stylebook recommends female as adjective, women as noun (https://help.apstylebook.com/support/solutions/articles/6600...)

- "Otherwise, avoid using “male” and “female” as nouns and instead use the specific nouns for people of different ages (e.g., women)." (https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-...)

- "Overall, participants rated the words females/males as more biological and technical, and women/men as higher on all other dimensions (e.g., appropriate, polite, warm)" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36348255/)

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/lady-woman-female-us...

- https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/462498/the-use-o...

I don't ascribe to everything written here, but I think it makes clear that wider discourse on the topic exists. Especially when using female(s) as a noun.

> Female, woman: Revised guidance noting that some people object to the use of female as a descriptor for women because it can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender identity.

This reads as using "male" and "female" is more precise? Communication many times is about being precise no?

Gender identity is typically irrelevant and in many ways too personal.

The important bit is adjective vs. noun.

Adjective: female doctor vs women doctor (guidelines recommend to use female, there is discussion about this but not much)

Noun: I dated three females vs I dated three women (guidelines clearly recommend women)

In fairness OP also refers to men as "males". Then later "men".

I don't have a view one way or another but maybe this time it isn't about women.

I missed that one, thanks. This changes the optics on this for me.

I guess I am more attuned to this when the topic is "'sex warfare' by beautiful Russian and Chinese young women on nerds".

> What is it on the Internet with calling women 'females'? I'd understand if you had written 'males' and 'females' OR 'men' and 'women'. This indicates an attempt at objectification to me.

It's probably the new concept of treating "gender" as distinct from sex, and the attempt to claim terms like "man" and "woman" and make them ambiguous with regards to sex. So some people who want to be specific increasingly use sex terms like "male" and "female" instead.

Male and female are preferred terms because they are objective and emotionally neutral while avoiding the sexism of misusing the word "man" to mean male human.

I'm not here to spark a debate or anything. just wanted to share a quick note on etymology since you mentioned "sexism", and I'll bow out after this. You do you!

Historically, "man" comes from Old English "mann," which originally meant "human being" or "person" in a gender-neutral way, without specifying male or female. Back then, the word for a male human was actually "wer" (like in "werewolf"), and for female, it was "wif" (as in "wife"). Over time, "man" shifted to primarily mean "male," but terms like "mankind" hung onto that older, inclusive sense.

So, using "man" in the "mankind" context isn't really a misuse or inherently sexist: it's tapping into the word's original roots. That said, I get why folks prefer "male" and "female" for clarity today. Peace!

> using "man" in the "mankind" context isn't really a misuse or inherently sexist

I understand the ethymologic perspective, but the above statement is part of on-going discussion.

E.g. > To refer to all human beings, use terms like “individuals,” “people,” or “persons” rather than “man” or “mankind” to be accurate and inclusive.

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-...

I personally like 'man' as it had a poetic ring to me. I also think it makes sense to pay attention to the differing perception of language, as I want to be able to communicate effectively with all kinds of people.

I just assume they're Ferengi.

Isnt objectification required to make the point here? We’re talking about spies

I should have been more precise, I meant one-sided objectification. I thought the point would come across with my 'OR' example.