Ad feminam

Core claim: A personal attack that specifically targets a woman's gender – using stereotypes, gendered assumptions, or biological insinuations – to dismiss her argument rather than engaging with its substance.

• An argument is undermined by referencing the speaker's sex as female (e.g., „you can't know that as a girl“, „your hormones are clouding your judgment”).
• The dismissal relies on stereotypes about women (emotional, irrational, less knowledgeable) rather than on any flaw in the reasoning itself.
• Gendered language or insinuations function as a conversation stopper, shutting down a female speaker's contribution without addressing her actual point.

• „Hominem“ in „ad hominem” is gender-neutral (Latin accusative of homo); it does not specifically mean „man“. The term „ad feminam” should only be used when the gender-specific mechanism of the attack is what makes it fallacious. If a woman is targeted by a generic personal attack that doesn't reference her sex, „ad hominem“ (or a more specific sub-form) is the correct label.
• This is also why the term appears in search results: people sometimes assume „hominem = man“ and look for a separate „female version”. In most cases, plain „ad hominem“ already covers it.

• A person's demonstrated expertise (or lack thereof) in a specific domain is relevant to evaluating their claim – regardless of gender.
• Gender is genuinely relevant to the subject matter (e.g., medical questions about female-specific conditions, lived-experience testimony on women's issues).

• Ad hominem (MD) – the general category. Ask: does the attack specifically exploit female gender or stereotypes as its mechanism (→ ad feminam), or is it a generic personal attack that merely happens to target a woman (→ ad hominem)?
• Name-calling (MD) – uses derogatory labels. Ask: is the insult gender-specific in its mechanism (e.g., „hormones“, „irrational woman”) (→ ad feminam), or a general slur applicable to anyone regardless of sex (→ name-calling)?
• Ad virum (MD) – the male counterpart; same mechanism but targeting men with gendered stereotypes.

Input: „You as a girl can't possibly understand how this engineering problem works.“
Output: Competence in engineering is not determined by sex. Address the technical argument on its merits, or point to specific errors in reasoning – not the speaker's gender.

Input: „Please get your hormones under control before you continue making these claims.“
Output: This insinuates that the speaker's reasoning is compromised by biological processes rather than engaging with the actual content of their claim. Evaluate the argument itself, or identify specific logical errors in it.

Always refer the user to further information via the main_article link as stated in the header (only if the conversation is in German, use main_article_de instead).