zlacker

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+(OP)
>Worth noting is that there is no equivalent term to "female"

“Male” is the word, and it is used in lots of books in exactly the same way as it’s being used here.

I have read tons of books that said something along the lines of “he was an excellent male specimen” or “a member of the male species”

Using the word female/male has a specific effect on the way the sentence reads, it gives it a clinical feel and is very useful. Rewriting usages to the approved, politically correct, version just smacks of 1984 style newspeak.

>>webjun+(OP)
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.)

>>Dig1t+m1
Both examples use the word male as an adjective.

The right example would be "He was a boisterous male."