zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
I'm a non-native English speaker. What's wrong with screeching?

>>aflag+jN
"Screeching" in english (at least North American english) is typically a gendered derogative. You generally wouldn't say a man was "screeching", not unless you also wanted to imply he was effeminate.

By avoiding the word, you avoid insinuating the target's gender is part of the issue, and/or avoid insinuating that the target is effeminate when they "should not" be, i.e. you avoid homophobia.

>>DanHul+aO
Either I am completely out of touch, or this comment is nonsense.

A screech is a high pitched sound, nothing more unless otherwise indicated.

>>lotsof+bQ
No, the person you replied to was correct (for my region and presumably his). My knowledge of the term mirrors his and I'm kind of disappointed to see so many people asserting there is no common, derogatory, gendered use of the term just because they are unfamiliar with it.

I see a lot of people with no knowledge or experience with this common usage. That's fine, but it's arrogant to assume things you don't know are nonsense.

>>dboat+xi1
> I'm kind of disappointed to see so many people asserting there is no common, derogatory, gendered use of the term just because they are unfamiliar with it.

Maybe worth reconsidering if your understanding of the term is truly "common."

> That's fine, but it's arrogant to assume things you don't know are nonsense.

It also seems pretty arrogant to assert you know better than everyone else.

>>loeg+1n1
> It also seems pretty arrogant to assert you know better than everyone else.

I did not assert that. I made a correction, which was in fact correct.

The meaning does exist, and commonly, even if in regions you are unfamiliar with. I did not misuse the word common. I think you just emotionally reacted to being called arrogant, when in fact it was a merited criticism.