You're referencing a specific context, though. In the context of referring to gender, "man" does indeed mean the male gender. However, "man" in other contexts still does mean humans as a whole, as shown in the examples I've already provided. There is no need to force that context into all uses, especially when an individual is clearly not being exclusive.

"Human" based forms of the terms that include the original neutral "man" are not prevalent enough to make that distinction. The best we can do is to change our own choice of words until those are the new default, and at that point the "man" based forms would be a specific choice to imply gender. The language has not evolved to that point yet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Well languages don't just evolve spontaneously either. They're a human project that we're always tinkering with.

You're just living through a period of evolution. We change our own choice of words until those are the default, and we encourage other people to do the same, and before you know it "man" has become archaic.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Encouraging language to evolve should not involve othering people by telling them their neutral language is gendered. It should come from making a personal choice of which words you want to use. That's the core of everything I've been saying. I have not said anything about not wanting change or that it's bad. I am simply stating that the term "man", currently and historically, is not always gendered in all contexts, and implying that it is creates an issue of excluding people which is contrary to the core idea of inclusivity.

You keep essentially repeating the same thing, which I'm not exactly refuting or disagreeing with. You also have not approached my main point about pushing a different meaning onto other people. So, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think it's okay for people to force their own, objectively incorrect, interpretation of someone's speech? Do you think it's okay to try to force the language to change by using emotionally manipulative tactics? Should language be changed at the expense of other's feelings by deciding to interpret their words in a context that is clearly not implied? Because that's what I'm disagreeing with. Otherwise, choosing to use language you prefer, based on good intentions, is a great thing.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

What you fail to recognize is that there are two forces evolving language. While many of us try to remove "man" because it is gendered, there are misogynists that use "man" because it is gendered.

You're caught in the cross fire and now you have to pick a side. I see nothing wrong with forcing you to pick my side by pointing out the fact that, if you don't, you are actively choosing to side with the misogynists.

It's sus that you're resisting this so hard. 🤔

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

It's sus that you're resisting this so hard. 🤔

Ah, there it is. There's the proof of manipulation. You've just been trying to say "if you don't use my language, then you're a misogynist" without directly saying it, but you are now. What exactly am I resisting? Is it that I'm resisting pushing an intention into other people's words that clearly is not there? Because I absolutely am. That's a rude and despicable thing to do. You've clearly ignored the fact I've said multiple times that I personally choose to use other terms and instead you try to push a new narrative because I don't think people should force new meanings onto other people.

While many of us try to remove "man" because it is gendered, there are misogynists that use "man" because it is gendered.

Once again, "man" is not gendered outside of contexts of gender. You're conflating two different uses of a term that has diverged. And it appears to be intentional, now. Which explains your behavior.

You're caught in the cross fire and now you have to pick a side. I see nothing wrong with forcing you to pick my side by pointing out the fact that, if you don't, you are actively choosing to side with the misogynists.

This is the same type of manipulation as what the right uses when they say things like "the war against Christmas". They try to create a narrative where if you don't use the word Christmas then you're anti-christian.

My point is that "man" in many contexts is not gendered. This is a fact that you are trying to deny.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man

See: Noun 1b, 2a, 2b, and the entire use of Man (verb)

Additionally, I have never once even implied that choosing other terms is in any way bad, negative, or somehow less than ideal.

The singular forms of "man" do have a gendered connotation (e.g. fireman, policeman, etc.), in those cases we absolutely should avoid using those terms. However, uncountable/plural forms do not have a gendered connotation. For example, nobody refers to a group of male people as "man", you call them "men".

Consider these sentences:

Finding out intelligent life exists all around us in our galaxy would be a hard truth to tackle for man.

Finding out intelligent life exists all around us in our galaxy would be a hard truth to tackle for men.

You are arguing that these are the same. They are not. And until they are, it is wrong to claim that it's misogynistic to use the former example.

And since I clearly have to spell it out for you: I am not saying that people should not choose other terms. I am not saying there is no benefit to choosing other terms.