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.
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.
Is treating females like a dirty, toxic word advancing a good cause?
At least they don’t judge.
because people who use females will say men and females - presumably because referring to them as women humanizes them
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.
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.