regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/21/85)
The neutral gender "Man" is said to include the notion of "Woman", but in fact, doesn't. It would only serve as a label for all people if we had a differentiating word for genetically male persons, as we have the word woman for genetically female persons. Man might work for everybody if we used woman and toman for the female and male portions of the race, but as long as it is used to indicate a PART of the whole, it can't be used to represent the whole without actually implying the exclusion of some. This is a nice, old argument that has been clarified some time ago -- see the explanations in "Words and Women", available in libraries and in paper back book stores.
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (05/23/85)
Actually, it *could* make sense if you thought of it like this: Every human is a man. Some of them (women) have the additional ability to nurture offspring (a womb). Thus <womb>+<man> ==> wombman, or woman for short. i.e. women are supersets of men. All women are men. No men are women. Are we not devolving? Sunny > > The neutral gender "Man" is said to include the notion of "Woman", but in > fact, doesn't. It would only serve as a label for all people if we had > a differentiating word for genetically male persons, as we have the word > woman for genetically female persons. Man might work for everybody if > we used woman and toman for the female and male portions of the race, > but as long as it is used to indicate a PART of the whole, it can't be > used to represent the whole without actually implying the exclusion of > some. > > > This is a nice, old argument that has been clarified some time ago -- see > the explanations in "Words and Women", available in libraries and in paper > back book stores. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)