[Blikkentrekker]

I'm simply disputing the claim that “Men are evil.” would be construed by English speakers to automatically refer to males.

The reason I'm not what you call “kind” is simply because this is how English works, and how it has always worked and how English speakers would interpret and parse that word.

I see no reason to avoid using a word in a perfectly acceptable, current, and historic use simply because you find that it has a different, secondary use. You call that “not being kind”. I call it “You don't own the English language any more than I do.”

You may speak as you will, I do not deny that the current usage of the word “man” has acquired a secondary meaning of “adult male human” opposed to it's historical meaning of “human" and if you wish to use it as such, then I'm confident I can usually discriminate by context. I merely ask that I be allowed the same and speak as I will and use the word in it's original meaning, that obviously still sees current use.

[tsimionescu]

> You may speak as you will, I do not deny that the current usage of the word “man” has acquired a secondary meaning of “adult male human” opposed to it's historical meaning of “human" and if you wish to use it as such, then I'm confident I can usually discriminate by context.

To be fair, while I consider your original wording to be pretty clear, this is wrong. According to Wikipedia, the word 'man' has adopted the meaning of 'adult male human' as its primary meaning starting with Middle English, when it displaced Old English 'wer'. There are still uses where it retains the much older meaning, but its primary meaning today is 'adult male human', and has been for a good few hundred years.

[Blikkentrekker]

I do not find that to be the case investigating the Global Web-Based Corpus, which contains modern, global internet-published English:

https://i.imgur.com/EG4zaoU.png [sadly the corpus cannot be easily linked, but one may search in it here: https://www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/]

The way I look at it, the usage therein of the word “man” to specifically discriminate sex is very rare but definitely occurs. What does occur is the use of the word “man” to refer to a specific individual, which would typically be male, but in most cases where the word “man” is used indeterminately to refer to a class, it seems to be used without regard to sex.

Apart from that the most common usage seems to simply be vocatively as address, which is also gender neutral.

I would agree that it is rare, outside of compounds, to use the word “man” in a determinate sense for a female man, such as “that man over there” which would mostly be used in a military context, but in an indeterminate context to speak of “a man in general” or “men in general”, the most common usage from context seems to be sexless to this day.

[tsimionescu]

Reading through the first 100 results, I see it mostly used to refer specifically to adult male individuals, or to "a man" meaning specifically an adult male ("would've flipped out if a weird man said some creepy remarks"). There are some uses where it may or may not be gender neutral ("you are a Spammier man than I" - may refer to a man or a woman, but it is probably used because the author is male; a woman might have written "a Spammier woman than I" instead, while also addressing both men and women).

There are also clear cases where "a man" is used to refer to "a human", such as "wheat growing taller than a man".

Rather more interestingly, if you instead search for "men", you'll see that is used essentially exclusively to mean "adult males". The only exceptions I found was "and because the greed of a few men is such that they think it is necessary that they own everything" and even there I'm not sure.

[Blikkentrekker]

> Reading through the first 100 results, I see it mostly used to refer specifically to adult male individuals, or to "a man" meaning specifically an adult male ("would've flipped out if a weird man said some creepy remarks"). There are some uses where it may or may not be gender neutral ("you are a Spammier man than I" - may refer to a man or a woman, but it is probably used because the author is male; a woman might have written "a Spammier woman than I" instead, while also addressing both men and women).

I disagree; the first uses of “man” in an indeterminate sense are these:

> down the economy, Here is the truth the republicans feel uncomfortable with a black man in the with house and a lot of voters are riding the republicans coat tail

> someday you might ask me to help you move. Or, to kill a man. # Leonard: I'll doubt he'll ask you to kill a man

> say, in 35 years of working I have almost always had at least one man who I felt " wrong " about. (the exception? Disney Studios!

> boyfriend, well husband, but either way would've flipped out if a weird man said some creepy remarks regarding me at a christmas party. To me this says

I have specifically included up till your reference, which was the first of an indeterminate usage of the word “man” that by implication is most likely gendered, whereas all the others are most likely not.

So there are three sexless ones before the first gendered one.

[tsimionescu]

I would argue that the one about 'a black man in the white house' was in fact gendered, though it is somewhat debatable. It was referencing Barack Obama specifically. If there had been a black woman president, the phrase would have definitely been written to specifically say 'a black woman in the whitehouse'. On the other hand, if it had been written before either a black man or a black woman had (tried to) become president, it may have still used 'man' in a gender less way.

[yrimaxi]

> You may speak as you will, I do not deny that the current usage of the word “man” has acquired a secondary meaning of “adult male human” opposed to it's historical meaning of “human" and if you wish to use it as such, then I'm confident I can usually discriminate by context.

You mean primary.

[hluska]

You wrote:

“Do these men think that time is free?“

That’s not even the same structure as ‘all men are evil.’ Instead what you wrote is gendered and thus completely inaccurate.

So again, you could have used ‘people’ to be respectful and inclusive but you’re choosing to stick with ‘man’ because that’s what you know.

That’s unkind. You know that this is an issue within our community but you are fully choosing to go against the norms because of ‘your language’?

I’m sorry but I thought we could have a conversation. This many replies in and I realize that you don’t actually have much sympathy, understanding or even basic caring.

Be better. It’s easy.

[Blikkentrekker]

> That’s not even the same structure as ‘all men are evil.’

Indeed it is not. I merely separately disagreed with that the statement “All men are evil.” would also by necessity be interpreted as such. Either can be, depending on context, but this is not such a context.

> Instead what you wrote is gendered and thus completely inaccurate.*

You seem to be of the minority that has interpreted it as such. I would not quickly use votes for an argument except when they pertain to popular opinion, and this is a matter of which interpretation is more common.

I certainly didn't mean any gendered statement, and I also believe that most readers did not read any gender into it.

> So again, you could have used ‘people’ to be respectful and inclusive but you’re choosing to stick with ‘man’ because that’s what you know.

I could, and you could also change your language to avoid any and all possible ambiguities that would not be a problem in practice due to the power of contextual inference.

You seem to ask that this specific word be given special treatment above all others.

> That’s unkind. You know that this is an issue within our community but you are fully choosing to go against the norms because of ‘your language’?

Such as here, the word “our community” is quite vague. You used the word “our” which is ambiguous in English as it's unclear whether it includes the listener or not, and on top of that also what it includes.

I can however perfectly well infer from context that this is an “our” that includes the listener, and can make a reasonable guess to the extent of the “community” you refer to.

Finally, do not know that it is “an issue” and I certainly do not know that there are “norms” about this. It very much seems that the majority sides with me on this issue given the votes, at least here. I do not believe I am going against any norms, not that I would consider an argumentum ad populum a strong one, but you were the one that raised it here.

> I’m sorry but I thought we could have a conversation. This many replies in and I realize that you don’t actually have much sympathy, understanding or even basic caring.

Well, frankness be, it seems from your language as though your default expectation is that your arbitrary wims, at least on this particular issue should be accommodated, and that everyone who disagrees with you is unkind or lacks sympathy.

You call it a conversation, but it seems as though you started it from the assumption that you are right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong.

> Be better. It’s easy.

It is your opinion that this is better that this is better indeed. Not everyone has to agree with you on that matter, and not everyone does.

[hluska]

Nobody ever has to agree with me and I’m proud to be a minority of one.

However, you’re a beautiful writer and beautiful writers can cause immeasurable pain. I’ll always speak out in case another minority of one feels pain but is too ??? to speak out.

Seriously, take good care. This has been a wonderful thread and again, you’re a really beautiful writer. :)