# 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:** 16\ **Page:** 5
**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, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/81 "2012-01-14T01:05:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s another thing, can we please abolish the word “may” and merge it into “can” already?! Yes, we can. No, we may not. Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/82 "2012-01-14T01:35:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > There are no true synonyms, any two words for the same thing carry different connotations and nuances. That doesn’t mean they aren’t _synonyms_–it just means they aren’t _interchangeable_. “Synonym” has never meant “generic substitute word.” In a thesaurus, _folk_ and _men_ might be found in the same entry, but there’s a reason why “imagination in the hearts of folk” doesn’t work the same as “imagination in the hearts of men.” We say, “It just doesn’t sound right”–but that’s because of the phrase itself (not just because of the one word change), and the origins of the phrase, and the cultural connections all tied to the connotations of the original phrase. So I would say that it’s not that we don’t have true synonyms, but that there almost always is a reason for the existence of two distinct words. You can’t just swap out _men_ with _folk_ for the purpose of this phrase. _Folk_ has a different history from _men_. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/83 "2012-01-14T02:23:13Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > So I would say that it’s not that we don’t have true synonyms, but that there almost always is a reason for the existence of two distinct words. Of course there is, but the reason is often historical, not functional. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/84 "2012-01-14T15:38:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course there is, but the reason is often historical, not functional. I guess what I’m tying to say is that we can’t always separate the two completely. ---
**Author:** ![BSweet69](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@BSweet69](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BSweet69)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/85 "2012-01-15T15:40:03Z")
I don’t mind the term “man” as referring to humans. I think if you have a huge problem with the term, use “people” or “humans”. ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/86 "2012-01-16T22:12:05Z")
I am a woman, and I do not mind–" hey you guys! ", or being called “dude”, or the literary use of “men” to imply human. The English language is so inclusive, and I love to play with it, being that it is not my first language. However, my boyfriend once became embarrassed when I referred to him as “my lady” in front of his peeps. So maybe the sense of gender is more involved here then I thought. I mean, if it is OK for me to be “dude” (all in good fun), but not ok for him to be “my lady”? ---
**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 17, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/87 "2012-01-17T01:58:43Z")
Depends on the subculture. ---
**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 17, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/88 "2012-01-17T20:15:14Z")
Would you call a group of a million women “men”? If one of them gives birth to a boy, does that make the group “men”? ---
**Author:** ![BSweet69](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@BSweet69](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BSweet69)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/89 "2012-01-19T15:42:18Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Would you call a group of a million women “men”? If one of them gives birth to a boy, does that make the group “men”? No, a female human gives birth, not a male human. If you are referring to the race of humans as “Man”, then a female Man does give birth…um…right? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/90 "2012-02-19T21:14:20Z")
Here’s another that just occurred to me: It should be possible for a military officer to refer to “the men” in a sense that includes the women. “The troops” just isn’t the same. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/91 "2012-02-19T22:31:46Z")
To me referring to “man” (not “a man”) is reasonable. I don’t see why it has to be sexist - to me it doesn’t mean only males and historically it hasn’t either. Even the name of the genus (homo) means “man”, so you could even make the argument that by definition humanity can also be referred to as “man”. I don’t think the problem is with the word, it’s with people’s minds. If you hear “man” and assume it only means males (or at least if you did before feminists decided they didn’t like it) then you are (or were) just wrong, the same as you’re wrong if you insist “letter” is only something you write with and it’s wrong to call mail on a piece of paper “a letter” because it also includes punctuation and maybe even a few numbers. I think I’d rather fight the word “chairperson”. It sounds like some kind of creepy hybrid. I imagine sitting down only to discover my seat has a face and arms to strangle me with. ---
**Author:** ![santorum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@santorum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/santorum)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/92 "2012-02-21T14:52:13Z")
Singular they. It was a feminist who started the whole “he” nonsense to begin with (because she did not like the number disagreement. [QUOTE=PATRICIA T. O’CONNER and STEWART KELLERMAN] If any single person is responsible for this male-centric usage, it’s Anne Fisher, an 18th-century British schoolmistress and the first woman to write an English grammar book, according to the sociohistorical linguist Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. Fisher’s popular guide, “A New Grammar” (1745), ran to more than 30 editions, making it one of the most successful grammars of its time. More important, it’s believed to be the first to say that the pronoun he should apply to both sexes. [/QUOTE] > **[The Grammarphobia Blog: On Language: All-Purpose Pronoun](https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2009/07/on-language-all-purpose-pronoun.html)** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/93 "2012-02-22T01:23:42Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > I think I’d rather fight the word “chairperson”. It sounds like some kind of creepy hybrid. I imagine sitting down only to discover my seat has a face and arms to strangle me with. In fact, the word was actually coined as subtle propaganda, to mentally prepare humanity for the Sentient Furniture Revolution. (Just imagine what you are sitting on now could do to you, if it were motile, sentient, and hostile. Think about that, some more, before rejecting negotiations.) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/94 "2012-02-22T02:44:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s another thing, can we please abolish the word “may” and merge it into “can” already?! You certainly can, but you may not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/95 "2012-02-22T02:56:39Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > You certainly can, but you may not. Remember that I have influence with your furniture. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-please-go-back-to-using-the-word-men-in-its-gender-inclusive-sense/608394/96 "2012-02-22T16:46:30Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Would you call a group of a million women “men”? If one of them gives birth to a boy, does that make the group “men”? I don’t have a super strong opinion on this whole matter, but I think this question contains a funny kind of… mistake, I guess is the word. If you didn’t know their sex, because there was a group protesting something-you-don’t-know-what, and you called them men, no one would find it strange, even if you happened to find out later they were females. But if you already know they are exclusively of one sex, the character of the organization has changed, because we don’t expect a sex-neutral issue to have _just happened_ to attract a million women together in one place. Then remarking on the actual make-up of the group is relevant. (Similarly for males, of course.) [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=4)