Yes, we can.
No, we may not.
Q.E.D.
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.
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.
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”.
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”?
Depends on the subculture.
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?
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.
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.
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]
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.)
You certainly can, but you may not.
Remember that I have influence with your furniture.
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.)