Seems your claim requires ignoring much regular English usage: it’s false.
presumably
That’s presuming an awful lot contrary to regular usage.
Regardless of motive, the act is the same: indiscriminately picking problems over females.
If everyone did that, females would be generally accepted as a dirty, toxic word.
Again: what good does that advance?
It’s thoughtless, self-destructive language policing.
Females does mean women or girls, and they wrote young.
It is logical to write men when boys are absent or not discussed.
Again: where’s the necessity for males?
The context doesn’t indicate offensive use of females, so picking over that word looks indiscriminate like the critic is stigmatizing the word itself.
Again: what good does that advance?
Not sure friend requests count as “looking” in that sense.
Young girls is a bit of a reach: young females could mean girls or young women where the age of the girl is unspecified.
Great job not answering the questions: a sign of real integrity.
Well if you want an answer to the question it’s purely the way it comes off. A lot of women I know get the ick when people use the word female in that context.
And a lot don’t.
Icks aren’t valid reasons & can be unjustified.
We all can read context as written without free associating extra assumptions.
The context doesn’t indicate offensive use of females.
If you read what someone wrote, twist it into something else, & judge them for it, that is unjustified.
What good does it promote?
More broadly
if you want an answer
wasn’t given.
As stated before
Regardless of motive, the act is the same: indiscriminately picking problems over females.
If everyone did that, females would be generally accepted as a dirty, toxic word.
The question remains: what good is advanced by treating females like a dirty, toxic word?
Females does mean women or girls, and they wrote young
So OP is asking what’s wrong with young girls that they don’t accept friend requests from strange men, and your asking why people are pointing that out as a problem?
And you just said “females” refers to women or girls.
So if they are sending friend requests to “young females” then they are sending friend requests to “young women” or “young girls”.
If they don’t want to sound like they are sending friend requests to the young girls of their coworkers (all of their mutuals after all) then “young women” would have been the better word to use.
“young females” then they are sending friend requests to “young women” or “young girls”.
Nope, doesn’t follow logically.
As I wrote at the link you willfully ignored, it could mean girls or young women, since they are female & they are young: I think you know that.
Some word choices circumvent disagreements over words with vague distinctions: while no choice is wrong or offensive, young female is less opinionated & unlikely to clash with varied opinions on the distinction between girls & young women.
Your diversion, however, leads nowhere & doesn’t answer the question raised before.
The comment mixes women & females so it doesn’t appear fixated on a word offensively.
When discussing complete sets, it symmetrically places words of a set together: “men, women” and “married, single”.
When not discussing complete sets, only the words needed appear: they write “single young female” without “single young male”, because there was no reason to write the latter—it’s not part of the topic.
The shift to females happens in a new sentence.
Again: explain the necessity for males.
Are you expecting everyone to write males for no reason whenever they write females (or the reverse)?
Do we need to do the same with married & single?
Are you claiming incomplete sets of words or asymmetry is offensive?
That shit would be exhausting.
Please explain the issue: otherwise, it looks like you’re simply picking over the noun female.
Do you ignore all the instances they don’t?
Seems your claim requires ignoring much regular English usage: it’s false.
That’s presuming an awful lot contrary to regular usage.
Regardless of motive, the act is the same: indiscriminately picking problems over females. If everyone did that, females would be generally accepted as a dirty, toxic word. Again: what good does that advance?
It’s thoughtless, self-destructive language policing.
Did OP use “males” anywhere?
No, the writer in OP may not have needed to use males (men & boys). Explain the necessity for males.
Wouldn’t that imply then that he’s referring to women AND girls? Because he does explicitly say men in the post.
Females does mean women or girls, and they wrote young. It is logical to write men when boys are absent or not discussed. Again: where’s the necessity for males?
The context doesn’t indicate offensive use of females, so picking over that word looks indiscriminate like the critic is stigmatizing the word itself. Again: what good does that advance?
He’s looking for young girls then. I’m not sure that’s such a good thing, nor does it make his use of females any better.
Not sure friend requests count as “looking” in that sense. Young girls is a bit of a reach: young females could mean girls or young women where the age of the girl is unspecified.
Great job not answering the questions: a sign of real integrity.
Well if you want an answer to the question it’s purely the way it comes off. A lot of women I know get the ick when people use the word female in that context.
And a lot don’t. Icks aren’t valid reasons & can be unjustified.
We all can read context as written without free associating extra assumptions. The context doesn’t indicate offensive use of females.
If you read what someone wrote, twist it into something else, & judge them for it, that is unjustified. What good does it promote?
More broadly
wasn’t given. As stated before
The question remains: what good is advanced by treating females like a dirty, toxic word?
So OP is asking what’s wrong with young girls that they don’t accept friend requests from strange men, and your asking why people are pointing that out as a problem?
Already answered: they wrote young females.
They wrote mutuals.
Nope: question clearly stated above about picking over a word.
You get points, though, for picking over the message instead of a word: notice females not mentioned. 👍
And you just said “females” refers to women or girls.
So if they are sending friend requests to “young females” then they are sending friend requests to “young women” or “young girls”.
If they don’t want to sound like they are sending friend requests to the young girls of their coworkers (all of their mutuals after all) then “young women” would have been the better word to use.
Nope, doesn’t follow logically. As I wrote at the link you willfully ignored, it could mean girls or young women, since they are female & they are young: I think you know that. Some word choices circumvent disagreements over words with vague distinctions: while no choice is wrong or offensive, young female is less opinionated & unlikely to clash with varied opinions on the distinction between girls & young women.
Your diversion, however, leads nowhere & doesn’t answer the question raised before.
The fact that the use one form for one gender and a different form for another gender is exactly the issue.
What’s the logic there that makes it offensive?
The comment mixes women & females so it doesn’t appear fixated on a word offensively.
When discussing complete sets, it symmetrically places words of a set together: “men, women” and “married, single”.
When not discussing complete sets, only the words needed appear: they write “single young female” without “single young male”, because there was no reason to write the latter—it’s not part of the topic. The shift to females happens in a new sentence.
Again: explain the necessity for males. Are you expecting everyone to write males for no reason whenever they write females (or the reverse)? Do we need to do the same with married & single? Are you claiming incomplete sets of words or asymmetry is offensive?
That shit would be exhausting. Please explain the issue: otherwise, it looks like you’re simply picking over the noun female.
Not answering the question: great evasion. 💯