🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!
ad_feminam
Ad feminam is a gendered form of the ad hominem fallacy in which an argument is dismissed, devalued, or not taken seriously because the speaker is a woman. The content of the argument is bypassed entirely, and the speaker's gender becomes the (explicit or implicit) basis for dismissal. This can manifest as overt sexism ('she's too emotional to reason about this') or as subtler patterns of discrediting, interrupting, tone-policing, or attributing a woman's position to her gender rather than her reasoning.
"She's just saying that because she's a woman and she's being emotional about it. Let's hear from someone who can be objective about this."
At a board meeting, a female director proposes a cost-cutting measure. A colleague leans over to another and whispers: 'She's only pushing this because she wants to look tough — women in leadership always overcorrect.' — Her proposal is attributed to gender psychology rather than evaluated on its financial merits.
A female scientist presents findings on climate modelling at a conference. An attendee tweets: 'Interesting how the most alarmist projections always seem to come from women researchers. Emotion over data.' — Her professional conclusions are dismissed by invoking her gender rather than critiquing her methodology.
Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:
Is an argument dismissed or devalued based on the speaker being female?
Type: binaryIs the speaker's gender used as a reason to discredit or ignore the substance of the argument?
Type: binaryWould the same argument likely receive different treatment if made by a male speaker?
Type: binaryAd feminam is a gendered form of the ad hominem fallacy in which an argument is dismissed, devalued, or not taken seriously because the speaker is a woman. The content of the argument is bypassed entirely, and the speaker's gender becomes the (explicit or implicit) basis for dismissal. This can manifest as overt sexism ('she's too emotional to reason about this') or as subtler patterns of discrediting, interrupting, tone-policing, or attributing a woman's position to her gender rather than her reasoning.
Deeply ingrained cultural associations between gender and credibility allow this fallacy to operate below conscious awareness. In many contexts, the default assumption of epistemic authority is masculine, making challenges to women's arguments feel natural rather than biased.
Redirect focus to the substance of the argument. Ask: 'Would you make the same objection if a man had made this argument?' Make the gender-based dismissal explicit so it can be evaluated on its own terms.
Common in parliamentary debates, academic settings, workplace meetings, online discourse, and media coverage. Research consistently shows women's contributions in group settings are more likely to be interrupted, attributed to others, or subjected to higher evidential standards.
Attacking the arguer's character, motives, or attributes instead of the argument.
A discourse tactic that focuses on the emotional tone or delivery of an argument rather than its content, effectively deflecting substantive engagement by demanding a 'calmer' or 'more civil' presentation. While civility has value, tone policing becomes manipulative when it is used to avoid addressing valid points.
Judging the truth or value of a claim based on its origin or history rather than its current merit or the evidence supporting it.
Preemptively presenting negative information about an opponent before they speak, so the audience will dismiss anything they say. A preemptive form of ad hominem that taints credibility in advance.
Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.