Well this thread just got a whole lot more interesting. . .
Sure. I get twitchy myself over talk of “herstory” versus “history”. However, my kids ask me questions when I’m reading to them. They want to know why mankind doesn’t just mean all the boys in the world if womankind means all the girls. The completely disbelieving look on their faces when you explain that mankind can mean both boys and girls makes you feel that a separate word might be more logical.
Thankfully, there is still time to socialize them into thinking the more appropriate “humankind”, “personkind” or other alternative just sounds stupid so why change it.
I agree.
At least we don’t have those silly gender attachments to everyday words like the Latin derived languages. In spainish “auto” or car is male and “cocina” or kitchen is, of course, female. As a male who enjoys cooking I find that somewhat offensive.
clarity can be improved in many cases by getting rid of “-man” in favour of gender neutral terms.
…or people could take 10 seconds - before they get all worked up - to look in Websters and notice that “Man” has 13 definitions (in my version), including: “a human being, regardless of sex.”
We see language evolve every day (you notice it especially with computer and technology terms). And I am fine with using terms like “police officer” or “mail carrier” to reflect with more certainty the fact that people of both sexes fight crime and deliver the mail. It is a little disturbing to me, though, when people seem to blindly target language. It seems very anti-intellectual to me.
English is not a Latin-derived language. It’s a Germanic language - interspersed with many Latin words, to be sure.
Pardon my mistake. I edited my post and learned something new.
Dude. Ohmigod. The tone of your post is so obnoxious. Please. Nose out of the air and ass out of the thesaurus. I doubt the author was looking for a philosophical discussion around the roots of our language. Just querying, “Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if there were a wider, more creative range of race naming conventions in general use.”
This is not a flame but I don’t think people wanting to change language are necessarily worked-up anymore than people resisting changes. Dictionaries record current usage. If “man” currently has 13 definitions and one of them is “a human being, regardless of sex” why not consciously work to improve such usage? Use “human” instead of “man” when what you mean is people, regardless of sex. Use “man” if you mean male humans. I would argue that getting rid of man as a synonym for human improves clarity and thus is an intellectual improvement.
What if Neil Armstrong took his first lunar steps and said:
“One small step for man, one giant leap for Humankind”
…
He certainly would have been clearer as to what he meant but something is lost and it is that “something” (I can’t put my finger on it) that I believe is being defended.
I’ve heard that Paul Thomas is organizing the First Annual ABDOMAN
Is Slowman available for spokesperson?
Marisol and ironclm could never have too many men.
Others are Aluminumman, Graniteman (I’m racing that one this year), Minuteman, Rock ‘n’ Roll Man
What I’d like to see are races called Caveman, Javaman, Modernman, or for a race that turns out to be a hoax Piltdownman 
Put one on in Neanderthal, Germany! 
You can scratch Lobsterman off the list, at least for now - it’s been cancelled due to concerns with the tides on the date previously chosen. www.lobstermantriathlon.com
Well this thread just got a whole lot more interesting. . .
Not really, just like the e-mails he’s been sent as my supposed representative on the USAT BOD , he won’t respond!
BTW, he is the race director for CFT Series and the Great Floridian Tri in Clermont, Florida, along with the TriAmerica Series…
If you look at the romance languages, the use of the masculine as a collective for groups of either all masculine parties or for groups of both masculine and feminie parties is the standard.
I think adding a layer of abstraction to speech to attempt to desexualize a collective is absurd, obtuse, and unnecessary. It’s frankly, in my mind, just an attempt to politicize something which is not in need of politicizing–the rules of grammar.
amen to that.
and this thread started with a rather lighthearted tone, and turned into
A: a gender war
why are some women so sensitive about this stuff?
look at it this way :
our word includes every one - man, as in mankind.
you’ve got a word all to yourself
B: a chance for someone who’s mad at the sommersports guy to vent.
good grief.
I too have found all the race names ending in ‘man’ to be getting quite amusing.
how bout spoonman?
what was that song about anyway?
really i don’t know.
*It’s rainin’ men, *
Halleluiah,
**
its rainin’ men.
I haven’t had this much of a laugh in a long time. You guys are great.
Support Crew
No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.