why don't we just reclaim the word "man""?

[Walkie]

rather that tie ourselves in knots trying to find PC terms for the increasing multipliciy of recognised sexes and genders, adding extra syllables all over the place so as not exclude females nor anybody  else, and even  trying to pretty much eradicate the perfectly good Anglo-Saxon word "mann" or "man" from our vocabulary.  why the heck don't we  roll back the English language and revert to calling everybody "men". Simple!

"adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man."

    It is notable that it was thought necessary to join wif, a neuter noun, representing a female person, to man, a masc. noun representing either a male or female person, to form a word denoting a female person exclusively. [Century Dictionary]

The formation is peculiar to English and Dutch. Replaced older Old English wif and quean as the word for "female human being."

(https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman)

Seriously.

Now some people  trying to phase out the gender-neutral word  "mankind", just because it no longer sounds gender-neutral to some. I guess "human" will follow. And... how about "mandatory"?  doesn't that sound a bit suspicious?

Let's just stop the rot and reclaim the word man for the whole of mankind  humanity  relatively non-hairy mammals from Planet Earth that usually walk on two legs .

If we must have  a word that exclusively refers to the male ones, we can always revert to  "weaponman" (or update it to "toolman" ? which carries both senses of "'weapon"  succinctly)  , or adopt the snappier (and less sterotypical)  "werman"". Or I'm sure that  Feminists can think of any number of apt and amusing alternatives.

The thing is , these arrogant wermen have sneakily usurped that word man, which rightfully belonged to everybody.  And should we just pussyfoot around the issue, quietly drop our own claim to the word (speaking to othe females here)  and let them  get clean away with it? I think not   

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

You do know that this is a lot like the "war on Christmas". Part of the supposed "culture war" that conservatives get all excited about. While most progressives spend like 3 seconds of thought on it once in a blue moon.

[Walkie]

Eek. I must be a Conservative   

but . yeah, it's pretty damned clear that these "progressives"(or whoever they are) who keep trying to rewrirte the dictionary only ever put about 3 seconds thought into it.  But that doesn't stop them getting their knickers in a twist.

 My own main interest here is in poetry, TBH .  I'd really like to preserve the natural beauty of my native tongue, without being accused of bigotry or some kind of "phobia" (as JK Rowling was when she ridiculed the altspeak,  remember? ) .  To which end,  I would much  sooner simplify than complicate. What's more, as someone who considers gender (especially mine)   to be largely  irrelvant, I actually like being referred to as "man" (just so long as it's understood that i don't necessarily have or even want  a penis )

[oh! and also, to my unending surprise, i've noticed any number of ugly and cumbersome  changes to English usuage being actually  forced through into common parlance,  in the name of political correctness. And if I have to waste time on speaking and typing all the extra syllables , well then,   might as well waste a teeny bit  time on proposing a more elegant alternative to the problem of gender neutrality . Besides which, c'mon  it would be fun, calling females "men" and males "wermen"  until we all got used to it. ]

[Jack]

Tend to use a writing style which is largely avoidant of singular first and second person pronouns, though not entirely, so it seems generally avoiding gender specific pronouns wouldn't be all too difficult to do. Writing is a good way to practice something like that because it allows time to consider how thoughts can be rephrased to negate a need to use them. It only takes two or three months to form a habit, so might try doing this.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Eek. I must be a Conservative   

but . yeah, it's pretty damned clear that these "progressives"(or whoever they are) who keep trying to rewrirte the dictionary only ever put about 3 seconds thought into it.  But that doesn't stop them getting their knickers in a twist.

You're not a conservative Walkie, I kinda figured that one out already.

And don't get me wrong, if we could transition to neutral pronouns 100% of the time then it will bypass a lot of unnecessary drama.

Some progressives do spend a bit more than 3 seconds thinking about pronouns. Trans rights activists, for example.

A biological male who openly identifies as a woman will likely spend more than 3 seconds thinking about it if someone insists on using male pronoungs in referring to them.

I consider myself progressive and I really don't think about it. I just use whatever pronoun seems like the most polite and respectful pronoun to use.

Think about who is best known for talking and pontificating and perseverating about this stuff. Conservative tossers like Jordan Peterson, that's who.

Like same sex marriage, I never spent any thought on whether it's a good idea or not and which side I should support and whether if we allow same sex marriage then next thing you know dogs will be marrying cats, people will be marrying chickens, and so on. I just voted "yes" because it was the right thing to do and love is love. That's it. I saw 2 girls down the dog park today, didn't think much of it and then a bit later I saw how they were interacting and it was obvious that they were a couple. I just thought "how sweet", same as if it were two dudes.

[Pyraxis]

My favourite part of the whole rant is "wermen". Not sure if mermen or weremen, but either way I approve.

[Walkie]

Some progressives do spend a bit more than 3 seconds thinking about pronouns. Trans rights activists, for example.

A biological male who openly identifies as a woman will likely spend more than 3 seconds thinking about it if someone insists on using male pronoungs in referring to them.

Indeed, i've known a few trans people, and if they ask us to think about it a bit more, that;s entirely reasonable. And if they get pissed off when people insist on the wrong pronoun, I'm 100% with them there.  Happily for me, most of the trans  people that I've known have have had intersts in common with me (that's how I met ém) and been pretty heavily into poetry, psychol;ogy or even both, wth the result that they put a lot more than three seconds thought into what they can reaonably and  realistically demand of the English language and other human beings, and thus don't attempt to rewrite the dictionary, just to engage in a dialogue. 
 
Conversely, most supporters of trans rights (or the loudest ones anyway. Prolly just a minoroty really) seem to devote all their brain power to taking offense, wirh zero respect and understanding for language itself and other speakers of language.[/i] They've got hold of the idea that language shapes the way we think, and try to use that concept like a sledgehammer to smash prejudice. Of course, prejudice shapes language a whole lot more than language shapes prejuduce, so you get euphemisms turned intto slurs, and all the negative connotations you thought to escape getting attached to more and more words, and so the dictionary becomes progressively more xenophobic and  depressing.

I think we spazzes are better than that, on the whole.  witness our ownership of the word spazz (The usage of "ghey"in the karma is regretable, mind...except it's prolly tongue-in-cheek). That's a much more constructive (and much less meddlesome) approach, IMO. You don't get away from prejudice except by making people stop and  think .

Oh! Here's an aquaintance of mine (won't call her a "friend""   because I've only met her 3-4 times) who likes challenging preconceptions. She's not a great  poet , TBH. (the sort who will sometimes stretch language way past its elastic limit just for the sake of making a rhyme *wince*) but has a great personality (if you can cope with extraverts) , and is developing into a damned good  performer. I also like that s/he (She identifies as a man in everyday life)  clearly thinks a lot, and asks her audience to think.

https://samionside.com/

[Walkie]

My favourite part of the whole rant is "wermen". Not sure if mermen or weremen, but either way I approve.

Thanks Yeah, I thought that was a bit of a masterstroke, though i say so myself   

Wermen it is.  shoulda made that clearer.  The prefix " wer" or  ""were " denoted a male in  Old English and various other Germanic languages. Aww , let's be lazy and quote Wikipedia:

Were and wer are archaic terms for adult male humans and were often used for alliteration with wife as "were and wife" in Germanic-speaking cultures (Old English: wer, Old Dutch: wer, Gothic: waír, Old Frisian: wer, Old Saxon: wer, Old High German: wer, Old Norse: verr).
Etymology and usage:
The word has cognates in various other languages, for example, the words vir (as in virility) and fear (plural fir as in Fir Bolg) are the Latin and Gaelic for a male human.

In folklore and fantasy fiction, were- is often used as a prefix applied to an animal name to indicate a type of therianthropic figure or shapeshifter (e.g. "were-boar"). Hyphenation used to be mandatory, but is now commonly dropped, as in werecat and wererat. This usage can be seen as a back-formation from werewolf (literally, "man-wolf"), as there is no equivalent wifwolf yet attested.

Ofc  we're still totally familiar with werewolves etc from folklore, so i probably should have used that "were"" variant, shouldn't I? But then, you wou;dn't be so tempted to pronounce it like "woman". So ,  OK, my choice of that spelling was quite possibly motivated by sheer devilment  . 

[Jack]

if we could transition to neutral pronouns

That seems like the easiest option. Rather than inventing new words, simply no longer consider them/they/their as plural.

[odeon]

The problem, of course, is that we can't because none of us gets to decide. Also, "them/they/their" as plural are all useful.

Every forced change of a language is doomed to fail, at least in anything resembling a democracy.

[Jack]

The problem, of course, is that we can't because none of us gets to decide.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

Also, "them/they/their" as plural are all useful.

Every forced change of a language is doomed to fail, at least in anything resembling a democracy.

That suggestion wasn't intended to negate the plural usefulness, but instead to consider them both useful as singular and plural. People already use plural pronouns singularly, though it might be considered poor grammar. It also wasn't intended to suggest anything forced. Avoiding the use of I/me/my/you/your seems like a much more difficult task than avoiding gender specific pronouns. Although avoiding all pronouns when referring to people sound even more interesting. It only takes making the decision to do it.

[Walkie]

if we could transition to neutral pronouns

That seems like the easiest option. Rather than inventing new words, simply no longer consider them/they/their as plural.

not so simple as it sounds, mind
Modern English has been lacking gender neutral third-person  pronouns for as long as its existed'. and the lack of them was felt long before it became a political issue. "How the heck should you refer to a person of unknown and unspecified gender in English? " has been a question that's plagued grammaticists since time immemorial, and they've never yet managed to agree . Some said use "he", others said use "they", but the latter is still regarded as grammatically incorrect in many contexts; and neither is ideal, both can cause confusion. 

They should have  just let lazy-tongued English speakers have their way, back in the 12th century when the Old English He and Heo (he and she)  had both got reduced to "E" or ""A"depending on dialect. I don't know about the other cases, but they certainly look promising candidates for that process of eroding distinctions from this table:

Case            Masc. sg. Neut. sg.           Fem. sg.    Pl. all genders
Nominative    hē            hit                    hēo      hīe
Accusative    hine    hit                    hīe           hie
Genitive            his            his                    hiere       heora
Dative            him            him                   hiere       him

according to Wikipedia:

 

   In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular "ou": "'Ou will' expresses either he will, she will, or it will." Marshall traces "ou" to Middle English epicene "a", used by the 14th century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright's English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of "a" for he, she, it, they, and even I. This "a" is a reduced form of the Anglo-Saxon he = "he" and heo = "she". By the 12th and 13th centuries, these had often weakened to a point where, according to the OED, they were "almost or wholly indistinguishable in pronunciation." The modern feminine pronoun she, which first appears in the mid twelfth century, seems to have been drafted at least partly to reduce the increasing ambiguity of the pronoun system...[3]

Thus in Middle English the new feminine pronoun she established itself to satisfy a linguistic need.

So "she "got dragged into the English language to clarify distinctinctions. And the Old Norse plurals ( they, their and them) were introduced for much the same reason, apparently.

Why fight the tide of history?  Pronouns are apt to wear down to inarticulate grunts , aren't they?  especialy those beginning with "h"or "th". We should swoop to take advantage when that happens and seize on the stripped-down versions for  the longed-for gender-neutral pronouns. We have plenty of stripped down pronouns in common parlance in the present day, don't we? But they're not "proper English". Why not recognise em as proper English? (see what I did there? ). 'E has made a predictable comeback ( if it ever went away)  along with 'ís   'ers etc. Surely all we need to do is make a suitable selection,   define them as gender neutral and thus obligate  people to  pronounce as well as write the initial consonants when they intend  to be gender specific.

Again, that could be fun. You'd find he-men making an unprecedented effort to pronounce their aitches , wouldn't you? if that stopped em from being mistaken for girls

What's to ohld us back, except for snobbishness? The new usages would, in fact,  be a whole lot more elegant than that ugly and unpopular  they/their/them fix.

[Walkie]

avoiding all pronouns when referring to people sound even more interesting.

interesting for the first few seconds maybe, then tedious in the extreme. eg  "Holly put Holly's holly wreath  into Holly's car boot, then Holly drove to Holly's friend's house..." etc. It would bring about the swift demise  of English literature, methinks

[Lord of the Ales]

 

[Jack]

What's to ohld us back,

Would guess general agreement is what holds people back. Non-gender specific pronouns may seem like a solution, but they're not for people who do want to be referred to as a specific gender.

avoiding all pronouns when referring to people sound even more interesting.

interesting for the first few seconds maybe, then tedious in the extreme. eg  "Holly put Holly's holly wreath  into Holly's car boot, then Holly drove to Holly's friend's house..." etc. It would bring about the swift demise  of English literature, methinks

Holly put a holly wreath into the car boot and then drove to a friend's house. It's really not that difficult.