Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3703 alt.romance:5190 soc.men:23542 soc.women:29621 soc.singles:71901
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!emory!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!bloom-beacon!bjohnson
From: bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.pschology,sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 90 13:11:09 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: bjohnson@athena.mit.edu
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 19

In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes:
>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>>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.
God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.

"Homo sapiens" would have been correct and not at all ambiguous, but
I suppose you would argue that because it translates to "wise man"
it too would have been confusing.

Sheesh - Brett
bjohnson@athena.mit.edu
bjohnson@micro.ll.mit.edu