Next topic: what is your favorite transgender wine? Delicate and perfumed but then sneaks up on you with structure. We’ll get somebody offended at some point…
Also, I’ve never seen masculine/feminine applied to whites or bubbles. I believe it’s strictly used for reds, right?
Yes, these terms can be used to accurately describe a wine, but said accuracy relies upon perpetuation of current gender stereotypes. If one is looking to precisely describe the wine, there are always better, more meaningful, adjectives one could use, as the terms “feminine” and “masculine” are mere metaphors in this context.
I have to agree with Rodrigo and others; I prefer to use other terms that are more precisely descriptive. There are simply too many points of view on what “feminine” are “masculine” would convey.
For example, if you mean to convey structure and tannins, silky mouthfeel, a nice, pleasing long finish then why not use these more descriptive and precise terms? Let alone run the risk of confusion and inadvertently offending your audience who may have a different notion of gender than you do— but also many people just don’t like the idea of between boxed in by gender and other stereotypes. Or seeing their friends or kids boxed in. Etc.
Yeah…as some others above have similarly expressed, my objection to the words is that there are better ones to use. I used them occasionally when I was first getting into wine but, even among a group who had a similar definition of what a masculine or feminine wine was, I soon found areas of imprecision and disagreement. I’d prefer to use words like elegant, pretty, perfumed, mineral, tannic, hard, potent, big, structured - all words I have heard others tie in to feminine or masculine definitions. In every situation where I have thought, heard, or read about these two words used as descriptions of wines, I’ve always been unsatisfied with their usage. Not for any reasons of “political correctness”, just because I don’t think they’re useful. I struggle with minerality in a similar way, but there I think it’s an issue of the limitations of language to describe the full range of human sensory experiences. If a bunch of people want to taste wine and use these descriptors to describe them, I’m not going to throw a fit, but I don’t personally use them or find them useful.
I always come back to the same root concept - communication.
Our hobby, and especially this Wine Berserkers board, depend on us using words to communicate our experiences, sensations and perceptions to each other. Any words we use are going to be highly imperfect, and easily capable of being critiqued for their shortcomings, but unless wine is going to become a solitary experience only in each of our heads, words are kind of the best we can do.
And yet we have long threads where we take shots at pretty much every descriptive term and phrase we use. It’s too general, vague, specific, inaccurate, pretentious, overused, etc. We have a long thread making fun of the excesses in terms used by professional critics. Countless threads attacking the use of scoring and numbers.
I think it becomes self-defeating if we keep trying to shrink the vocabulary that we can use. It’s already so difficult to try to speak the language of wine, and then we get weighed down by having read how every word or number we are about to try to use is foolish or wrong. I wish we had long threads talking about growing the list of words we can use to share our experiences with each other.
Back to the specific topic of the thread, those terms are imperfect and subject to meaning different things to different people. Like almost all words we use in talking about wine. But if those words can play one part in a person communicating ideas and experiences about wine to another person, then I say great, go right ahead. If you find them not helpful, then use other words, and that’s fine too.
I’m more interested in having learned a new word: bowdlerize !
Well said, Counselor
I think the terms are appropriate wine descriptors for people of a certain mindset, myself included. I have used them frequently. I agree with Doug that the way I use them has nothing to do with the winemaker’s gender. I also agree with Chris that maybe it is a lazy shortcut to saying something more specific. Finally, I agree with Robert A’s questioning whether it is apropos in current times. Apparently I am having an agreeable day !? But seriously, there is some food for thought here, and I am going to try to avoid applying these terms to a wine and put more thought and choose other words to describe my impressions.
Overall I find them to be relatively clumsy shorthand. I have tried to avoid them in recent years because of that. If a wine is robust or delicate I prefer to state it explicitly, rather than tie that characteristic to gender. I don’t find the use of the terms offensive, but I think there are much better terms that are as easy to identify and put in a note.
Can a Barolo from La Morra be described as tannicly confused?
Like others, I seldom use those terms as there are certainly better descriptors. But when describing wines to unexperienced tasters, they can be very useful because everyone can relate to the concept.
Don’t think I have used the terms in a long time. I tend toward descriptors like elegant, delicate, lithe, taut, brooding, brawny, etc., which I think are more clear in their intent. But I wouldn’t fault anyone for using the gender terms, and would understand the meaning just fine.
Piedmont Nebbiolo:
Barolo: XX
Barbaresco: XY
Just to make fun of people referring to one as the “King” of Nebbiolo and the other as the “Queen”
Well, I’ve seen many people describe wines on CT as “good…red…dry…would drink again”, so laziness is rampant.
More reds than whites, but you could probably find examples where those terms might fit (N Rhone white perhaps?).
Hmm…Phil - Matt Kramer said : the single greatest standard used in assessing a great wine is : its complexity. One needs to go back the glass of the wine…to sniff and sniff again. Whether it is red or white …it is still a wine.
In other words, if you could accurately described it as feminine or masculine …could it then be a great bottle of a wine ? If one could not call it - masculine or feminie, what should we call it ![[smileyvault-ban.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/426cc97ad8dd530c8304b0918ca75ff841d4d950.gif "[smileyvault-ban.gif]")
?
Interessing… 
Yes! What is a “nice-tasting” wine? Or an “interesting” one? Or a “tasty” one?
The terms masculine and feminine are culturally constructed descriptors that also carry cultural beliefs about male and female as biological categories. The language Alex offers as what they convey makes this all too obvious. While the fact that we all live in the culture that uses them means we know what they mean, we have also come to know where the meanings come from. So, yes, the terms can be meaningfully used. But whether or not one might want to find alternatives, and plenty can be found that are equally meaningful, is another question.
I infrequently use the terms, but I have in the past. Generally it’s to describe wines within a specific category so it contrasts the styles within that category. In such a case, I believe they have the most meaning. An example is Vintage Port. I describe Warres and Ferreira as “feminine” and Taylors as “masculine.” I think this carries quite a bit of easily recognized description without going overboard on the verbiage.
That whole “king of wines and the wines of kings” can be very misleading.
Yes, the terms convey meaning that everybody understands. The PC people have abdicated their right to be offended by this for the obvious reason that ████ █ ███████ █ ███. ███, ████ █ █████ ██████ █ █████ ███ ██ █████ ███████ █████ ████ █ ██████.