zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
> A most formidable female -> A most formidable woman

What is the reasoning for this? Not following what is "wrong" in the original.

>>gedy+rl
Using the term "female" to describe a woman can be perceived as reductive and dehumanizing because it reduces her to a biological category. By using the term "woman," the focus is shifted from her biological characteristics to her identity as a person, which is a more respectful and accurate way of addressing her.

Worth noting is that there is no equivalent term to "female" when referring to men, who are almost always referred to as "men." This is because there is an underlying cultural assumption that men are the default and women are the exception. While the use of the word "female" to describe a woman is not inherently wrong, using the term "woman" is more accurate and respectful, and nobody would use the term "male" to describe a man in the same way.

>>webjun+Tp
I personally would not call someone “a female”, for the reductive reasons you mention.

I also would not change the words of a dead author to reflect modern usage because I enjoy stepping into a the past and seeing how people used to write. Plus there is the alliteration, which is really the clincher here: those who edited this are philistines.

(Not throwing anything at you, webjunkie. You merely explained the change without opining on it. Just commenting in general.)