LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:Nice is terrible. It's a placeholder word for the absence of personality.
People don't commit, either as deep friends or anything more, to someone who doesn't have more about them. It's one of the main reasons "nice guy syndrome" exists, this idea that you only have to be a vaguely polite non-entity and all the feeeeemales will be chasing you like you're the protag in a Lynx advert.
Emphasis mine. What other word should one use to describe that which applies to grown women and young girls alike?
...but it reminds me of other contexts in which similar issues pop up. For instance, in trans issues, the very words "males" and "females" are being shifted from their former anatomical definition and toward a vague, ambiguous "however they identify" notion, instead of creating new words for "however they identify." There hasn't been as much of a rush to create new words in their place designed to refer to all the anatomical distinctions.
Are people just trying to avoid addressing the effects of anatomy or something?
I wouldn't ask, except that trans notions of male and female could've been explained away as an attempt to stick it to the assholes imposing "bathroom bills" on everyone, and the taboo against the word "females" could've been explained away on its own as just guilt by association, not unlike with modern perceptions of the word "negro."
But when there is such a clear similarity between these otherwise distinct concepts, I can't help but think there's an overarching pattern of avoiding the subject of anatomy's effects, and I don't think it's wise to do so. It seems to be part and parcel of taking "gender-neutral" to irrational new levels, like when they apply "male gives birth" to someone who is still anatomically female. What's the endgame here? The denial of the effects anatomy and hormones have on people?