Where’s your evidence?
You’ve only given an overgeneralization
that is derogatory
and questionable speculation (not observational evidence) that doesn’t support it.
It is often used to dehumanize women, as the term is mostly used when talking about animals.
Even if a term often dehumanizes, does it follow that the term itself is derogatory (especially if common uses often don’t dehumanize)?
The speculation poses generalizations on observable phenomena.
If a term is mostly used to talk about animals, then it’s dehumanizing.
Noun female is mostly used to talk about animals.
Some problems with that: where’s your observational, generalizable support for any of it?
(Empirical generalizations need that type of support.)
Is 2 even true & how would you show that?
Does your overgeneralization withstand observation?
No: if it did, then the example given & other refuting instances wouldn’t be easy to find.
What is an empirical claim that fails to account for observable reality?
Worthless.
Outright denying observations that conflict with your claim/pretending they don’t exist is part confirmation bias & part selective evidence fallacy.
Try respecting logic & choosing tenable claims that can withstand basic observation.
FYI Linguistics and much of science rely on methods other than statistics.
Classical & relativistic physics were developed without it.
Planetary observations rejecting geocentrism didn’t involve statistics.
Much of linguistics is detailed observation & analysis of language samples to identify patterns and rules, so good luck finding statistical studies to support your claims.
Examples have been given, so it’s not opinion: it’s plain observation which you’re denying.
Where’s your evidence? You’ve only given an overgeneralization
and questionable speculation (not observational evidence) that doesn’t support it.
Even if a term often dehumanizes, does it follow that the term itself is derogatory (especially if common uses often don’t dehumanize)?
The speculation poses generalizations on observable phenomena.
Some problems with that: where’s your observational, generalizable support for any of it? (Empirical generalizations need that type of support.) Is 2 even true & how would you show that?
Does your overgeneralization withstand observation? No: if it did, then the example given & other refuting instances wouldn’t be easy to find.
What is an empirical claim that fails to account for observable reality? Worthless.
Outright denying observations that conflict with your claim/pretending they don’t exist is part confirmation bias & part selective evidence fallacy. Try respecting logic & choosing tenable claims that can withstand basic observation.
FYI Linguistics and much of science rely on methods other than statistics. Classical & relativistic physics were developed without it. Planetary observations rejecting geocentrism didn’t involve statistics. Much of linguistics is detailed observation & analysis of language samples to identify patterns and rules, so good luck finding statistical studies to support your claims.
lol, just because you post a long comment with links to Wikipedia, doesn’t mean that you are right.
No, logic does that: showing everyone else you’re wrong is just icing.
lol.
You have done nothing of the sort.