Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Gender neutrality in English
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Generic words for humans=== Another issue for gender-neutral language concerns the use of the words ''man'', ''men'' and ''mankind'' to refer to a person or people of unspecified sex or to persons of both sexes. Although [[man (word)|the word ''man'']] originally referred to both males and females, some feel that it no longer does so unambiguously.<ref>{{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|pp=11-17}}</ref> In [[Old English]], the word ''[[were|wer]]'' referred to males only and ''wif'' to females only, while ''man'' referred to both,<ref>{{harvp|Curzan|2003|p=134}}</ref> although in practice ''man'' was sometimes also used in Old English to refer only to males.<ref>{{harvp|Curzan|2003|p=163}}</ref> In time, ''wer'' fell out of use, and ''man'' came to refer sometimes to both sexes and sometimes to males only; "[a]s long as most generalizations about men were made by men about men, the ambiguity nestling in this dual usage was either not noticed or thought not to matter."<ref name="Miller and Swift 1988 12"/> By the 18th century, ''man'' had come to refer primarily to males; some writers who wished to use the term in the older sense deemed it necessary to spell out their meaning. [[Anthony Trollope]], for example, writes of "the infinite simplicity and silliness of mankind and womankind",<ref>Quoted in {{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|p=26}}</ref> and when "[[Edmund Burke]], writing of the [[French Revolution]], used ''men'' in the old, inclusive way, he took pains to spell out his meaning: 'Such a deplorable havoc is made in the minds of men (both sexes) in France....'"<ref name="Miller and Swift 1988 12">{{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|p=12}}</ref> Proponents of gender-neutral language argue that seemingly generic uses of the word "man" are often not in fact generic. Miller and Swift illustrate with the following quotation: <blockquote>As for man, he is no different from the rest. His back aches, he ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth....</blockquote> "If ''man'' and ''he'' were truly generic, the parallel phrase would have been ''he has difficulties in childbirth''", Miller and Swift comment.<ref>{{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|p=15}}</ref> Writing for the [[American Philosophical Association]], Virginia L. Warren follows Janice Moulton and suggests truly generic uses of the word ''man'' would be perceived as "false, funny, or insulting", offering as an example the sentence "Some men are female."<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Warren |first1=Virginia L. |title=Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language |url=https://www.apaonline.org/page/nonsexist |publisher=[[American Philosophical Association]] |access-date=29 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302025159/https://www.apaonline.org/page/nonsexist |archive-date=2 March 2020 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Further, some commentators point out that the ostensibly gender-neutral use of ''man'' has in fact sometimes been used to exclude women:<ref>{{harvp|Freeman|1979|p=492}}</ref> <blockquote>[[Thomas Jefferson]] did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the [[consent of the governed]]." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word ''men'' in its principal sense of ''males'', and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise.<ref name="Miller and Swift 1988 12"/></blockquote> For reasons like those above, supporters of gender-neutral language argue that linguistic clarity as well as equality would be better served by having ''man'' and ''men'' refer unambiguously to males, and ''human(s)'' or ''people'' to all persons;<ref>{{harvp|Freeman|1979|p=493}}</ref> similarly, the word ''mankind'' replaced by ''humankind'' or ''humanity''.<ref>{{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|pp=27}}</ref><!-- In gender-neutral language, when the description of defined genders has a practical need, the words "Male and Female" are often used as opposed to "Men and Women" in an attempt to make emphasis on the scientific features of male and female humans as opposed to cultural associations and baggage that may come with the words "Men and Women". {{clarification needed|date=January 2013}}--> The use of the word ''man'' as a generic word referring to all humans has been declining, particularly among female speakers and writers.<ref name="Miller and Swift 1988"/>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)