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
In current American English, “female” has shifted to usually being an adjective, woman is a noun. Referring to people by noun-ing one of the adjectives that describes them is something considered reductive by a chunk of the population.

If someone is a fan of “female” as a noun: I’m not going to change your mind. I get that changing language is annoying sometimes. I’m pointing out that “female” as a noun does bother some people, “woman” only bothers people if they know it’s been changed and see it as bowing to PC pressure. Since most people don’t check the diffs from one edition to another when buying books, this is a really easy decision on the part of the publisher, who just wants to quietly make money for the most part.

>>bee_ri+o41
"[first thing] does bother some people, [second thing] only bothers people if they [condition]."

That phrasing (in particular "does" vs. "only") makes it sound like being bothered by the first thing is inherently justified but being bothered by the second thing isn't. And why do you specify the condition that will cause the second thing to bother the people but leave it ambiguous for the first thing?

>>joseph+ej1
That the former is unconditional while the latter is conditional is simply an accurate description of the situation.

I don’t think describing the conditional thing as conditional implies any judgement.

>>bee_ri+0n1
"Woman" does bother some people because they have always used the word that way whereas "female" only bothers people who are hell bent on changing language.

Fixed it for you.