Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3796 alt.romance:5294 soc.men:23636 soc.women:29699 soc.singles:72422
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!wp6
From: wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Nov1.233150.31363@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 1 Nov 90 23:31:50 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Oct25.140829.19268@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <58695@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: news@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Daily News)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 22

In article <58695@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes:
[...]
>
>Insofar as gender in language is concerned, when I want to "de-sex" it,
>I usually refer to both genders: women and men.  Otherwise, I speak from
>my own gender (as I have heard female commentators speaking from theirs).
>If someone gets upset over a woman or man speaking from their own gender,
>then let them whine.  Rational people have better things to do.

	The original article said something like "is man naturally
polygamous?"  After reading that sentence, I wasn't sure whether or
not the author was referring to men, or to all people.  I mean, it's
possible that men may be naturally polygamous and women aren't, or
vice versa.  So the usage was in fact ambiguous.
	Oh, if only I could reach the level of rationality that you
have already acheived.




					Walt Pohl
		"alt.walt?  It has a certain ring to it, no?"