Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3698 alt.romance:5182 soc.men:23537 soc.women:29615 soc.singles:71880
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!s.psych.uiuc.edu!coshima
From: coshima@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Craig Oshima)
Newsgroups: sci.pschology,sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Oct25.140829.19268@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 90 14:08:29 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 22

>>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
>>   		       ^^^
>>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
>>meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
>>used "person" in place of "man".
>
>"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.

I don't think the point was intended to be grammatical, but you're right.

>God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.

Get used to it.  Besides, it's not so much de-sexing as it is removing
the overwhelming "male" influence.  What's so difficult about saying
"human nature" or something?  I admit I read right over the original
sentence without alarms yelling "sexist!", and I doubt the original
post even intended to be sexist.  But women are people too, and there's
no reason to flame someone for pointing it out.

Just my humble opinion,

Craig