The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!

Usage is in the process of changing. Since the 1970s man has come to refer more and more exclusively to the male gender, with the inclusive terms being humanity, humankind and the like. The word mankind still means everybody, but lately it sounds a bit archaic.The big drawback in any change of usage is that it alters how we understand the earlier way of talking. Aaron Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man was for both sexes. His audiences understood this; it was the most gender-inclusive language they had. For Neil Armstrong, 'man' and 'mankind' were likewise gender-inclusive terms. Modern usage makes people hear these statements in a gender-restricted way that Copland, Armstrong and their audiences did not.One has to know when usage has changed and make adjustments--if we would truly understand, and be understood.

---

Archer

My background is the humanities. I know all about the gender-normative terms and constructs, the 'other' etc.All that is good to keep in mind when choosing your own words. I am glad you are sensitive to such issues, Crash, and I'm sure your writing is better for it.When listening to the words of another, I find it's best to focus on what they are saying rather than whether they observe the latest trends in saying it. It's unrealistic to demand that everyone in your environment talk like you. They won't.Most people can recognize problems and tensions in the traditional English usage. If the language had been perfect no momentum would have accrued to change it. But remember that plenty of women as well as men use the more traditional terms and feel none the worse for it. Included among these are thinkers and innovators who have plenty of ideas worth listening to. It would be a shame to miss what they say in a legalistic preoccupation with pronouns.Do not allow your feminism to become a fundamentalist religion. No one is going to go to hell for saying the word mankind, so why react like a Calvinist? What doth it profit a person if s/he overcometh stigmatizing some people as The Other only to stigmatize other people as The Other? Be something more.Your feminism is based on the idea of making everyone feel included. Good. Why not stay on that high road? Don't you believe it is good to respect choices, even if they are not those you would make? Wouldn't this apply to word choices as well?Please go slow in labeling another person as sexist or racist--and please, never to do it based solely on what is, or was until recently, standard English vocabulary.In matters of love and hate, fear and acceptance, listen to the music first. The music always tells you more than the words.

---

Archer

Thanks for the context, Crashfrog. I missed the original exchange, of course, and kept this in mind when I responded. Sounds reasonable to me.At the time I posted I couldn't be sure about that first bit, based only on the comments I'd read. Not everyone allows for that. It's good to know.

---

Archer

holmes wrote: Why hasn't someone suggested this before? That is cool.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.