Using fangirl on someone of unspecified gender is clearly gendering the behavior attempted to be called out. One could just as easily call someone a sycophant without resorting to needlessly gendered terms.
While I agree that in an ideal world we wouldn’t feel the need to use gendered terms (in english I should say, lest we pull an imperialism on gendered languages), the use of a gendered term really isn’t in-of-itself misogyny.
Hey, look, a real world example demonstrating why your worldview is not up to the task of dealing with reality!
Patriarchy is a huge ancient oppressive system. One of the domains of patriarchy is language, specifically embedding the gender binary and misogyny into both denotative and connotative meaning. Hysterical literally means “crazy the way a woman is crazy”.
Addressing the oppression of patriarchy and its effects on language by working to move beyond the gendered binary and the misogyny is not in any way, shape, or form imperialism or analogous to imperialism.
When you undo the harm of oppression, that it not doing an oppression. When you fight back against imperialists, that is not imperialism. When you work against racism, that is not racism. And when you fight against patriarchy, it’s not feminine patriarchy.
I simply didn’t want to force my cultural interpretations of gender onto the language of an entirely separate culture. That’s a discussion that they should have without my interference - I have no place to comment on, for example, the push for the adoption of the term “latinx” (doubly so as this discussion is entirely about the use of a gendered term in english and interpretations drawn from one culture aren’t universally applicable)
No, seriously, working to degender the languages of European patriarchal white Christian supremacist genocidal nations is not “doing an imperialism” on them. Yes, you can impose on them. No it’s not oppression.
I also use latiné but yeah, but yes the people who insist on misgendering others simply because their language has a gender binary in it are not in the right
This is fascinating - and you’re a trans hispanic person? Because this is at complete odds with what I’ve been repeatedly told by said group previously…
I’m not trans. I am Hispanic. But I’m a white Hispanic. And a group never told you anything. People tell you things, and they belong to groups. Within the groups themselves are contradictory beliefs and positions.
Latinidad is particularly vexing. The language of Latin America is a Christian white supremacist patriarchal settler colonists genocidal language. If there were any justice in the world, it would be eradicated and the languages of the dead would be heard from Alaska to what we call Tierra del Fuego.
But, because the Spanish ultimately lost to the English in the grand game of empire, Spanish is a signifier of lower social status. So white European Hispanics who’s families were settlers, like mine were, feel like they are actually the oppressed people, not the oppressors, because the USA discriminates against them. White supremacy and victimhood simultaneously run rampant throughout latinidad. We see it the most in the white Cubans and Venezuelans who want nothing more than for the US to invade their former countries of residence and exact divine vengeance on those who would rather uplift black people and women than maintain the genocidal settler colonial project.
It is not imperialism to tell all of the latinate languages that they have to break the gender binary. It is anti-imperialism. After all, Latin was the language of the Roman empire, so chosen and designed to propagate their ideology.
This isn’t use of a gendered term in a vacuum. Sure, “Fangirl” is not necessarily a bad thing to call someone in appropriate context, but as always, context makes all the difference. In the context here, the person who used the term is clearly using “fan-x” to be a negative thing. Completely removing gender from the equation, they clearly think it is both wrong and disgusting that someone be a “fan” of Russia. Even without gender, the “fanboy” or “fangirl” term as it is being used here is dripping with condescension and disdain. 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.” They added the “girl” on as a way to add more disparagement to the term they were already using as an insult. That is misogyny.
This isn’t hard, and the presence of misogyny should be obvious to anyone, even if they might be hard pressed to pick it apart and explain why. That you are going into this pedantic redditor debate pervert defense of it really brings your own motive into question.
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?
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.
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.
This is simply not true - hence providing the genderless definition. If we aren’t caring about pedantic aspects like definitions, I also see it used constantly to describe men without insulting their masculinity, often as a self descriptor. For example since it carries far fewer negative connotations than, say, Otaku (a term that has fallen out of favor due to it’s original Japanese meaning…) it is commonly being used in place of former phrases like “going otaku”
Perhaps you and I simply have wildly different cultural experiences, and you have not seen this?
and still reaching false conclusions
Alright, and while you have told me this is false repeatedly, I can point to where the standard non-academic authority for english definitions shows it’s sometimes a genderless term. I have seen no actual evidence that I’m wrong beyond you coming in to assert that I am. And while that may be pedantic, it’s not terribly pedantic nor hostile since my entire point has been that both users were using the term correctly, and that use of a gendered term is not in itself inherently misogynistic.
I’m not sure what about those you’ve got an issue with but I am genuinely curious about your thoughts there.
Using fangirl on someone of unspecified gender is clearly gendering the behavior attempted to be called out. One could just as easily call someone a sycophant without resorting to needlessly gendered terms.
While I agree that in an ideal world we wouldn’t feel the need to use gendered terms (in english I should say, lest we pull an imperialism on gendered languages), the use of a gendered term really isn’t in-of-itself misogyny.
Hey, look, a real world example demonstrating why your worldview is not up to the task of dealing with reality!
Patriarchy is a huge ancient oppressive system. One of the domains of patriarchy is language, specifically embedding the gender binary and misogyny into both denotative and connotative meaning. Hysterical literally means “crazy the way a woman is crazy”.
Addressing the oppression of patriarchy and its effects on language by working to move beyond the gendered binary and the misogyny is not in any way, shape, or form imperialism or analogous to imperialism.
When you undo the harm of oppression, that it not doing an oppression. When you fight back against imperialists, that is not imperialism. When you work against racism, that is not racism. And when you fight against patriarchy, it’s not feminine patriarchy.
I simply didn’t want to force my cultural interpretations of gender onto the language of an entirely separate culture. That’s a discussion that they should have without my interference - I have no place to comment on, for example, the push for the adoption of the term “latinx” (doubly so as this discussion is entirely about the use of a gendered term in english and interpretations drawn from one culture aren’t universally applicable)
No, seriously, working to degender the languages of European patriarchal white Christian supremacist genocidal nations is not “doing an imperialism” on them. Yes, you can impose on them. No it’s not oppression.
So I should be telling people to use latinx?
I also use latiné but yeah, but yes the people who insist on misgendering others simply because their language has a gender binary in it are not in the right
This is fascinating - and you’re a trans hispanic person? Because this is at complete odds with what I’ve been repeatedly told by said group previously…
I’m not trans. I am Hispanic. But I’m a white Hispanic. And a group never told you anything. People tell you things, and they belong to groups. Within the groups themselves are contradictory beliefs and positions.
Latinidad is particularly vexing. The language of Latin America is a Christian white supremacist patriarchal settler colonists genocidal language. If there were any justice in the world, it would be eradicated and the languages of the dead would be heard from Alaska to what we call Tierra del Fuego.
But, because the Spanish ultimately lost to the English in the grand game of empire, Spanish is a signifier of lower social status. So white European Hispanics who’s families were settlers, like mine were, feel like they are actually the oppressed people, not the oppressors, because the USA discriminates against them. White supremacy and victimhood simultaneously run rampant throughout latinidad. We see it the most in the white Cubans and Venezuelans who want nothing more than for the US to invade their former countries of residence and exact divine vengeance on those who would rather uplift black people and women than maintain the genocidal settler colonial project.
It is not imperialism to tell all of the latinate languages that they have to break the gender binary. It is anti-imperialism. After all, Latin was the language of the Roman empire, so chosen and designed to propagate their ideology.
This isn’t use of a gendered term in a vacuum. Sure, “Fangirl” is not necessarily a bad thing to call someone in appropriate context, but as always, context makes all the difference. In the context here, the person who used the term is clearly using “fan-x” to be a negative thing. Completely removing gender from the equation, they clearly think it is both wrong and disgusting that someone be a “fan” of Russia. Even without gender, the “fanboy” or “fangirl” term as it is being used here is dripping with condescension and disdain. 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.” They added the “girl” on as a way to add more disparagement to the term they were already using as an insult. That is misogyny.
This isn’t hard, and the presence of misogyny should be obvious to anyone, even if they might be hard pressed to pick it apart and explain why. That you are going into this pedantic redditor debate pervert defense of it really brings your own motive into question.
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.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the term - isn’t this exactly what you’re doing right now?
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.
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.
This is simply not true - hence providing the genderless definition. If we aren’t caring about pedantic aspects like definitions, I also see it used constantly to describe men without insulting their masculinity, often as a self descriptor. For example since it carries far fewer negative connotations than, say, Otaku (a term that has fallen out of favor due to it’s original Japanese meaning…) it is commonly being used in place of former phrases like “going otaku” Perhaps you and I simply have wildly different cultural experiences, and you have not seen this?
Alright, and while you have told me this is false repeatedly, I can point to where the standard non-academic authority for english definitions shows it’s sometimes a genderless term. I have seen no actual evidence that I’m wrong beyond you coming in to assert that I am. And while that may be pedantic, it’s not terribly pedantic nor hostile since my entire point has been that both users were using the term correctly, and that use of a gendered term is not in itself inherently misogynistic.
I’m not sure what about those you’ve got an issue with but I am genuinely curious about your thoughts there.
You can use genderless terms like sycophant.
No argument there.