Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Man as a neuter-gender concept
Message-ID: <434@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 15:54:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.434
Posted: Tue May 21 15:54:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 04:05:44 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 16




The neutral gender "Man" is said to include the notion of "Woman", but in
fact, doesn't.  It would only serve as a label for all people if we had
a differentiating word for genetically male persons, as we have the word
woman for genetically female persons.  Man might work for everybody if
we used woman and toman for the female and male portions of the race,
but as long as it is used to indicate a PART of the whole, it can't be
used to represent the whole without actually implying the exclusion of
some.


This is a nice, old argument that has been clarified some time ago -- see
the explanations in "Words and Women", available in libraries and in paper
back book stores.