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.