Post #3108165

2026-06-04 22:56 UTC

The fact that they specifically added “girl” to it while having no indication of the actual gender of the person they were referring to is not just some innocent “oh hey let’s be equitable this might be someone who has feminine gender expression.” It’s already widely used as a genderless term though - that was the whole point of my initial comment. Both interpretations were correct - it is a gendered noun, and it is a term that describes behavior regardless of gender. debate pervert Perhaps I am misunderstanding the term - isn’t this exactly what you’re doing right now?

Replies (1)

@LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml 2026-06-04 23:27

It’s already widely used as a genderless term though It’s not, though. You will never hear someone calling a man a “fangirl” unless the person saying it is a misogynist trying to insult that man’s masculinity. Adding a “-girl” or “-boy” onto any word is not “gender neutral” it is literally the opposite of gender neutral and saying that it is is ridiculous at least and possibly disingenuous. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the term - isn’t this exactly what you’re doing right now? I think you are misunderstanding how human interaction works. No, it is not what I am doing, responding to someone who is using excessive pedantry (and still reaching false conclusions) necessitates addressing the pedantic points they used, but doing so is very obviously not also being pedantic. You really do seem to have a strange difficulty with recognizing how things that may have aspects that are in parity with each other are not therefore intrinsically the exact same thing as each other.

Open ##3108164