With all due respect, it’s historically accurate to suggest that “hysterical” has a specific feminine association. Much like “thug” is coded as Black (you won’t find many reports of white “thugs”), “hysterical” is coded as female.
“As a general rule,” wrote the French physician Auguste Fabre in 1883, “all women are hysterical and . . . every woman carries with her the seeds of hysteria. Hysteria, before being an illness, is a temperament, and what constitutes the temperament of a woman is rudimentary hysteria.” http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft0p3003d3&chunk.id=d0e14039
The language of “hysteria” has served to directly oppress the voices of women by pathologizing them. There’s a massive amount of historical accounting on this topic that I’d encourage you to research.
Remarking on all of this is not “political correctness;” it’s socio-historical and linguistic awareness. (If I heard men use this term for other men — ever — I wouldn’t have pointed it out in the first place. I’d ask you to reflect, in good faith, how and for whom you’ve used it). The irony here is that many people use “political correctness” in the same way people use the word “hysterical” — to write off people with valid claims. It’s easier to say “That’s just a bunch of politically correct mumbo jumbo” than to listen. Swap “political correctness” with “basic, decent human respect” and you’d be closer to the mark.
I appreciate your engagement on this topic, and the compliment about my writing : ). I hope you will consider the content of the writing.
Thanks for reading!