- But “man” just means “person,” unless some particular “male” or “males” are meant. This double usage exists in English but not in Latin or Greek. In Greek the two nouns, “anthropos,” and “aner,” and Latin has “homo” and “vir.” Both “anthropos” and “homo” are used generally for humans, and rarely specifically for a “male person.” “Aner” and “vir” are used for a “male” person. English used to use “wer” as the noun for a “male” person until “man” usurped it. English “wer” is “cognate” with Latin “vir.” English “wer,” “male person,” still exists in “werewolf.”
Thus, as said, “man” is perfectly compatible with inclusion of both sexes in any work name; fireman, policeman, draughtsman, garbageman, et cetera.
Only ignorant losers, like the PC idiots, would make fools of themselves, not having done any research into the question, but instead by asserting blatant bias by men against women using a false narrative of male violence against and hatred toward women and that from time immemorial, when, in fact, language used by both men and women was inclusive of both sexes. IF THERE WERE, INDEED, ONE SEX WITHOUT PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED THE MALE, SINCE, HAVING NO SPECIFIC WORD FOR “MAN,” AFTER THE OBSELETION IN USE OF “WER,” MEN HAD TO SHARE “MAN” WITH WOMEN, WHILE WOMEN ALSO GOT THEIR OWN NOUN, “WOMAN.” AS I SAY, WOMEN GOT TO SHARE AND HAVE THEIR OWN NOUN, WHILE MEN HAD TO SHARE.
Does that paint a different picture for you in contradiction to the divisive, hateful, sordid tale of hatred and lIes that has gone down as de rigeur “truth,” over the last fifty years?