# Can we please, please go back to using the word "men" in its gender-inclusive sense? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394 "2012-01-04T17:41:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/61 "2012-01-05T22:36:15Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > Sometimes the word “men” or “he” is used as a reason for excluding women. There’s a famous story about how FBI agents were described, using the word “he”, and someone pointed to this to show that agents couldn’t be female. Certainly things like that have happened - but it was I assume regarded as a silly argument. People will make such arguments, not because they honestly are confused, but because they wish to push a particular exclusive agenda. Unsing totally gender-neutral terms will not stop such “arguments”. Here in Canada, for example, one of our landmark court decisions was the so-called “persons” case. > **[Edwards v Canada (AG)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Canada_(Attorney_General))** > > Edwards v Canada (AG), also known as the Persons Case (French: l'Affaire « personne »), is a Canadian constitutional case that decided in 1929 that women were eligible to sit in the Senate of Canada. The legal case was put forward by the Government of Canada on the lobbying of a group of women known as The Famous Five—Henrietta Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy and Irene Parlby. The case began as a reference case by the federal Cabinet directly to the Supreme Court of Ca... In a nutshell: the issue was whether in Canada women could be senators. The constitution act stated that qualified “persons” could be senators. A woman was nominated as a senator. Were women then “persons”? You’d have thought the answer was obvious, but the case went all the way to the Privy Council, which ruled as follows: > [@](#): > > “[T]heir Lordships have come to the conclusion that the word “persons” in sec. 24 includes members both of the male and female sex and that, therefore, … women are eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.” I can’t think of a more gender-neutral term than “persons”. Yet it did not of itself prevent controversy - not that anyone seriously thought a woman was not a person, but because some of the judges of the time refused to grok that women could be senators, and deliberately “read in” to the term a sex restriction that did not exist. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/62 "2012-01-08T23:02:12Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > It would be just as logical to demand that everybody stop using “you guys” when referring to both sexes. > > As an aside, I grew up with “y’all,” and for most of my adult life, if I heard someone say “you guys,” my brain parsed that as “you male people.” It always sounded ridiculous to hear someone say “you guys” when addressing a mixed audience, even more so with an all female audience. Considering how many times I’ve heard one female address another as “Dude” and how prevalent the addressing of one male by another as “Bitch!” (sexual orientation, that said, not determined in either case) has become, “you guys” to a mixed audience seems moot. * * * In cases where gender is indeterminate and I need to use a pronoun, I tend to use “one” as in “Someone left one’s briefcase behind.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/63 "2012-01-08T23:17:09Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I don’t understand why (or whee, even) the OP doesn’t think we can’t use “folk” in that context. “Imagination in the hearts of folk” doesn’t **sound** the same. Try it. There are no true synonyms, any two words for the same thing carry different connotations and nuances. The sound, the feel of the phonemes in the mouth, is always part of that difference. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/64 "2012-01-08T23:39:55Z")
As for gender neutral singular pronouns, if “they” was good enough for Shakespeare, it’s good enough for me. Everyone should get their books. They President can nominate anyone they want. The customer came in for their shirt, so I gave it to them. This is the way the English language handled, handles, and will handle gender-neutral pronouns, so all y’all better get used to the idea. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/65 "2012-01-09T06:13:43Z")
Peeps works for me. Humans. Humankind. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/66 "2012-01-09T06:19:01Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > As for gender neutral singular pronouns, if “they” was good enough for Shakespeare, it’s good enough for me. Everyone should get their books. They President can nominate anyone they want. The customer came in for their shirt, so I gave it to them. > > This is the way the English language handled, handles, and will handle gender-neutral pronouns, so all y’all better get used to the idea. Hear, hear. I know don’t why anyone has a problem with this, [considering how long using “they”](http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/they.html) [as a singular, indefinite pronoun has been commonly used in English](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they). ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/67 "2012-01-09T07:16:21Z")
Not acceptable in my English classes. Sniff. I really would have expected to see more people using “she and he” and “her and him” in that order occasionally. Can’t you vary your gender positioning just a little? You all seem to be in such a rut. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/68 "2012-01-09T08:13:30Z")
heh. i finally feel at an advantage, as i can just refer to you all as ‘the humans.’ i don’t seem to get along well with the humans… ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/69 "2012-01-09T08:17:02Z")
wait, i’m sorry– i don’t want to step on any toes. humans _and_ hu_women_. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/70 "2012-01-09T08:47:20Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Regarding gender specific words such as actor/actress &etc. This is a different issue, perhaps the complete opposite. Why should you strive for an alternative to “man” (covering the male and female), and at the same time insist that actor – the male form – also includes the female? Because it does include the female. How often have you seen forms such as “skuespillere og skuspillerinner”? In plural it’s the suffixless, in your mind male exclusive, form that’s nearly universal. The suffix use also emphasises that male is the default, female requires an extra qualifier. > [@](#): > > In addition I especially like having a language whose evolution can be traced back thousand of years, and as such have an especial dislike and distrust of words invented for political or ideological purposes. There’s really not a question of inventing words. Some have done so, but such words have not really caught on anywhere in any language. In Norwegian however we have examples such as “styreleder”(board leader) replacing “styreformann” (board chairman/foreman). It’s a question of using what we have in a less biased way. A good example is the intro to Star Trek TOS which goes _Where no man has gone before_, to _Where no one has gone before_ in TNG. The thousands of years of language evolution in a male dominated society is why political and ideological “interference” with language use and development is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/71 "2012-01-09T11:54:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Imagination in the hearts of folk” doesn’t **sound** the same. Try it. Maybe it’s because I’m dual-language Afrikaans speaker, but it sounds just fine to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/72 "2012-01-09T16:13:56Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Maybe it’s because I’m dual-language Afrikaans speaker, but it sounds just fine to me. Each phrase sounds fine, but in a slightly different way. There are no true synonyms. ---
**Author:** ![hildea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ebca7d/32.png) [@hildea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hildea)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/73 "2012-01-10T16:27:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > There are no true synonyms, any two words for the same thing carry different connotations and nuances. Absolutely. So if you want a gender-inclusive word for “human being”, but at the same time want a connotation of males being more important than females, then “man” is the word you are looking for. **Rune** : You said you’d never heard anyone making an issue of “han/ham” (“he/him”) being the default common gender in Nordic languages. I posted those links to give you a few examples of people making an issue of it. (Fighting ignorance is good, right?) Note: I don’t claim that it’s an important issue here. For instance I’m pretty sure most Nordic feminists think it’s far more important to [fight war, poverty, and disease](http://www.care.no). ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/74 "2012-01-10T17:06:58Z")
How about “dudes” as the unisex, all encompassing version ? Imagination in the hearts of dudes. Think about it, man. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/75 "2012-01-10T19:48:27Z")
> [@hildea](#): > > Absolutely. So if you want a gender-inclusive word for “human being”, but at the same time want a connotation of males being more important than females, then “man” is the word you are looking for. The problem in attempting to modify the language as constructed by centuries of development is the problem of recursion. For example, the apparently-neutral term “human” used by you visually contains the root word “man”, as does “woman”; same deal with “male” and “fe-male”. [Though I understand that this is not how “female” originally developed as a word - from the Latin “femella”] All these words could be said, by visual implication, normalize the male sex and indicate that the female sex is the modification (and hence presumably of lesser importance). Yet the language is rife with them. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/76 "2012-01-12T19:05:27Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Regarding gender specific words such as actor/actress &etc. This is a different issue, perhaps the complete opposite. Why should you strive for an alternative to “man” (covering the male and female), and at the same time insist that actor – the male form – also includes the female? I seem to recall reading 19th century feminists arguing for more such gender specific words. Although I don’t remember the cause for their demand, I should imagine it being the same, they don’t want to be included in the male version. An actor is an actor is an actor. And they all belong to the Screen Actors Guild. “Man” has a gender specific connotation. I don’t get why “people,” a word with no gender connotation, cannot be used. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/77 "2012-01-12T19:18:07Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > An actor is an actor is an actor. And they all belong to the Screen Actors Guild. > > “Man” has a gender specific connotation. I don’t get why “people,” a word with no gender connotation, cannot be used. It works in some contexts perfectly well, not so well in others. For example, the “inalienable human rights” scans better than “inalienable rights of people” or 'inalienable people’s rights". “Inalienable rights of folk” sounds either terribly twee, or some sort of scary reference to ethno-nationalism. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/78 "2012-01-13T15:05:47Z")
When discussing the game of go, a lot of people refer to the black player as “he” and the white player as “she” for demonstration purposes. Not being a firm believer in linguistic relativity, I’ve never found the whole discussion on gender in language particularly enlightening. I guess that’s “male privilege”, though. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/79 "2012-01-14T00:40:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because, bowing respectfully to feminists everywhere, and in full support of their cause in practically all respects, and then stamping my little feet in shrill demanding, I **want** a good strong one-syllable Anglo-Saxon word for “persons”! Walt Disney, not too long ago, could make a nice phrase like “imagination in the hearts of men” – nothing else **works** there! Not even “folk”! Why should this be lost to us?! I agree. “Men” should, ideally, mean “persons.” Yet we still need a word for the virile sex,\* el varón.\* That’s what’s missing, and without it we’re screwed. I suppose we could pull Old English “guma” out of the bog of history and modernize it. “Goom,” plural “gooms,” anyone? Of course, that’s another form of the Indo-European “earth/son of earth (i.e., human)” stem, like “human” so that may be confusing. “Were” is a bit too close to “were,” “we’re” and “weir.” “Boy” and “knave” are puerile; “knight” is a title equivalent to “chevalier” now. “Churl,” “carl,” “earl,” “atheling,” and “lord” might refer to men but they’re social-class terms. “Wight” signifies more or less “entity” etymologically, doesn’t it? That might do for the Anglo-Saxon sex-neutral term, as might “body.” Well enough if we have no better term than “man” for\* el varón.\* I still like “goom” though, in theory. Or we might find another variant of “carl”/“ceorl”/“churl” For now, I think I’ll use “buck” for\* el varón.\* ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/80 "2012-01-14T00:55:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And on that note, how’s about we **split** a word? The basic one-syllable AS word “why” really should be two words, because it can be used to ask two different and **logically unrelated** questions – “From what cause?” and “For what purpose?” – and using just the one word for both makes that word sound like a much, much more profound word than it really is. > > Flashing on an ep from _The Prisoner,_ where Number Six (played by a different actor this ep, the story includes a mind-transference, IIRC) crashes his agency’s (or **some** agency’s) near-omniscient computer just by asking it “Why?” (This was back in the 1960s, when computers understood English as English.) No, the super-computer was in “The General,” and the mind-transference is from “Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling.” Anyway. I was going to suggest that this is what “wherefore” is supposed to be used for, but that’s a bit vague. I think the dialectal terms “why for” and “how come” are what you seek, but they get confused in practice. Or you could use “whence” and “whither”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394.md?page=5)