🚀 go-pugleaf

chi9@quads.uchicago.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:

>In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu
>(Brett W Johnson) writes:
>>In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
>>wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes:
>>>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve
>>>Reiser) writes:
>>>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
>>>		       ^^^
>>>
>>>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
>>>meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
>>>used "person" in place of "man".
>>
>>"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.
>>God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.

>	Actually, what would have been suitable here would be one of
>"peoples'" or "humanity's."

>	What you call "feminist quibbling" is in fact a perfectly legitimate
>attempt to remove discrimination.  After all, the original sentence really
>does (even if that was not the intent of the poster) give first place to men
>and leave women out.  The use of the masculine where neuter should go has
>evolved for centuries to give supreme linguistic representation to men, and
>would do so even had that not been the original intent, simply due to the
>definitions of the words involved.

>	By the way, of the newsgroups in the header, I only get sci.bio.  I
>realize that sci.bio is not the most appropriate newsgroup for this subject,
>but the issue of sexism in language is important enough that I had to
>respond.

>--
>|   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  chi9@midway.uchicago.edu

I agree, women have just as much right to be non-monogamous as men.
And they DO.
                            -Rob