A Bombshell Post Alleges that Louis Midgley Was Physically Violent Towards Women

[Physics Guy]

Chromosome envy. Sigh.

[Hades]

I was talking etymology, not biology folks, but it seems I was incorrect, so for that I apologize. There are those who believe the the word "woman" has it's roots in "womb-man". So a woman is a man with a womb, etymologically. This is likely a misconception. The word "man" originated as a gender neutral word meaning "person" or "human". The word "woman" originated from the word "wifman"; wif, "female" and man, meaning "human". The word "wife" is also derived from "wif" meaning "female".

The point is, I think it's absurd that we have to separate everything out these days or we are somehow not "inclusive". Why can't we realize that the words "man", "mankind" with pronouns "he", "him", are all inclusive? Have we been dumbed down to the intelligence of squid? Is it all meant to sow division?

[Moksha]

The point is, I think it's absurd that we have to separate everything out these days or we are somehow not "inclusive".

Fortunately, gender is not woven into English as strongly as in other languages.

[Physics Guy]

Why can't we realize that the words "man", "mankind" with pronouns "he", "him", are all inclusive? Have we been dumbed down to the intelligence of squid? Is it all meant to sow division?

Even back when everyone accepted that "he", "him", "man" included women and girls, one might say things like, "I bumped into a man in the street this morning." The hearer or reader would then have been surprised and confused if one had continued, "She looked just like my aunt." That's because even when it was accepted that the male forms could include the female ones, most of the time they did mean the specifically male ones.

As a purely linguistic result the actual meaning of "man" was never simply "man or woman". It was always "normally, a male human; in some unusual contexts, a human of either gender". And so, even if used in those unusual contexts, "man" would put males in the foreground and fade females into the background. It made male the default.

You may possibly disagree about how big or bad that linguistic effect is, but you can hardly disagree that it exists. So preferring gender-neutral terms can't possibly just be called stupid. There's a serious reason for it.

Against it the only reason I can imagine is an insistence that " 'man' includes 'woman' " is somehow an officially correct rule of English. That whole way of thinking is just silly, though.

Speakest thou thus the while? Marry, methinks not.

Language changes. It's not corruption or error. Language has always been arbitrary. The rules are whatever most native speakers think the rules are. And this particular ship sailed back in the 90's.

[Res Ipsa]

I was talking etymology, not biology folks, but it seems I was incorrect, so for that I apologize. There are those who believe the the word "woman" has it's roots in "womb-man". So a woman is a man with a womb, etymologically. This is likely a misconception. The word "man" originated as a gender neutral word meaning "person" or "human". The word "woman" originated from the word "wifman"; wif, "female" and man, meaning "human". The word "wife" is also derived from "wif" meaning "female".

The point is, I think it's absurd that we have to separate everything out these days or we are somehow not "inclusive". Why can't we realize that the words "man", "mankind" with pronouns "he", "him", are all inclusive? Have we been dumbed down to the intelligence of squid? Is it all meant to sow division?

It seems to me that if man originated as a word meaning “person” or “human”, then the terms “person” or “human” are acceptable, inclusive alternatives. Especially given PG’s point that “man” commonly means “male person or human.”