zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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.

>>dboat+(OP)
It may have a gendered connotation some places, I definitely don’t think it does in my English-speaking country (Australia). Screeching primarily used for inanimate objects (wheels, alarms, etc.) and animals and then secondarily mostly in a non-gendered way for children.

Interestingly the examples in both the entry from Oxford that Google brought up when I searched the term, and the second example in the Cambridge dictionaries are both boys doing the screeching. The other examples are inanimate and screeching describing the experience of tinnitus. So it seems the UK is similar.

So potentially for much of the English-speaking world this term wouldn’t bring up thought of any kind of gendered slur. So it goes both ways - just because something is the case in your region doesn’t mean it’s true across the board.

>>stephe+Pa
> So it goes both ways - just because something is the case in your region doesn’t mean it’s true across the board.

I never said nor suggested that it did. I was criticizing the people saying it is not a common usage because they hadn't heard it. You and the other user trying to correct me by repeating how you are from a place where the meaning is different both completely missed the point.

The meaning exists, and is used derogatorily, and definitely commonly in some places. None of what you wrote has any bearing on that.

>>loeg+u4
> 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.