Using the word "women" as an adjective is becoming a very popular way of referring to a group of (insert noun here) who happen to be women. "Women doctors," "women firefighters," etc. You get the picture.

There are a few schools of thought on this, as a grammatical issue. There are those who believe that a two-word compound noun, when plural, only needs the actual noun to be made plural. Thus, instead of "women doctors", the plural would be "woman doctors." There are VERY few exceptions to this. Manservant/menservants is the only one I can find in any of the grammar books that I own.

However, a grammatical example has been provided, and, as promised, I'm amending this writeup. If Webster says it's right, I won't argue (the folks who sent me nasty name-calling messages will, no doubt, be thrilled).

I myself will probably continue to gravitate towards using "female doctors." It avoids the issue entirely.

I see a different problem with using “women” (ORwoman”) as an adjective referring to a group of (nouns) who happen to be female; women surgeons, women athletes, etc. My complaint with this linguistic configuration is that it assumes that the unmodified noun (writer, lawyer, philatelist, etc.), is male, the same way that “male nurse” implies that any other kind of nurse is female. I’d opt for a little less clarity and a slightly wider acceptance of gender roles, thank you.

"The New Webster's Library of Practical Information, Grammar Guide," (Copyright 1987) pg 38:

9. The plurals of compound nouns are generally formed by adding s to the principle word in the compound.

(some examples of that)

Sometimes both parts of the compound are made plural.

manservant : menservants
woman doctor : women doctors


Oddly enough it has exactly what you asked for...

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.