🚀 go-pugleaf

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