Because the more common slang like broad, missy, babe, hun, shorty, or even more offensive terms (slut, skank, sloose, etc) are all animals?
And I really don’t know what the point is here when men are also referred to as dogs, pigs, bears, baboons, monkeys, walruses, wolves, and other animal-derived (prowlers, predators, etc).
While I acknowledge there could be problems in certain work places (possibly industries) — I can’t say I’ve outright seen it (only heard rare cases) where I’ve worked, but I can’t deny the possibility — I am starting to notice a trend in those that have built up a point of view about this issue.
It generally begins with one or two cases, which can popularly be agreed on as “wrong”, but then other supporting claims and cases are made that are more conjecture then evidence. — If a point can be reasonably debated, then it shouldn’t go into the article; it devalues the position being held.
If removing the contestable claims takes away the majority of the article, then I ask to either re-evaluate the position being held (perhaps it’s not as bad as previously thought) or to consider not authoring something pre-maturely (instead wait for actual supporting facts that aren’t as easily dismissed).
All-in-all, thank you for the article as some anecdotal evidence may certainly be better than someone saying, “there’s a problem” without any evidence at all.