Students lose marks for using 'he': Universities penalise undergrads for 'offensive' gender phrase - Sensationalist Headlines

If you legitimately believe saying "to boldly go where no man has gone before" or "they manned the gunnery stations" or "mankind has made many strides throughout its existence" is evidence of some bias then I want some of whatever you're smoking

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056233]When you're writing a bias-free article it is. Word choice is everything.[/QUOTE] So do you have some evidence of the effects from studies that we can actually look at, preferably some that are more recent than 1972?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056219]Well the source material is the paywall article that I linked, which is why I linked it in the first place. The Guardian contains a lot of that source material but for some reason leaves out very important parts of that source material such as the very first paragraph that explains that you're allowed to use he/she properly.[/quote] How many times do I have to repeat that I don't care about the he/she? Stop getting stuck on that, for the love of all things. [quote]I'm not arguing whether or not the Daily Mail is a valid source but that one fact is visible in the free portion of paywall article. It really feels like you're pulling off these mental gymnastics because you don't want to admit your snark failed :v: And by the way you should get a refund on that class because just because they use neutral language doesn't mean that they're a non-bias source. You can write a completely biased article while looking as unbiased as possible. Look at the facts at the article. Compare them to other articles that provide facts. Does that article provide less facts? Does the removal of those facts paint a different picture?[/quote] You assume too much about me. I don't care if my snark failed or not lol. Why yes, I'll march right up to the admission's office and demand a refund for a [b]required[/b] class. A non-biased article or journal is more likely to use neutral language than an emotionally charged one. However, that's just one step of determining if a source is biased or not. But thank you for proving my point about the Daily Mail article, seeing that it does provide fewer facts than The Guardian article. [quote]Just because people don't complain about it doesn't mean it isn't an issue. That being said, just because something is an issue for a few people doesn't mean that it's an issue for everyone. If you have a typo in your essay no one is going to complain about it, but it's best to fix that typo if you want to appear as professional as you can.[/QUOTE] Uh. Yeah. People do care about typos. Kinda why part of the grading rubrics always contain something about "Spelling and grammar".

[QUOTE=sgman91;52056191]Where can I find the actual study? Google isn't coming up with it. All I can find are tons of sites quoting that specific paragraph. I've even found sources attributing that quote to a different person altogether.[/QUOTE] The writing itself does not belong directly from the study. The study was done by Professor Joseph Schneider and Professor Sally Hacker, two highly cited and respected researchers of sociology. I unfortunately cannot find the study itself. Finding non-landmark studies from 1970 is incredibly difficult in 2017 so we'll stick with modern. [editline]3rd April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52056243]So do you have some evidence of the effects from studies that we can actually look at, preferably some that are more recent than 1972?[/QUOTE] Sure. [url]http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/when-he-doesn%E2%80%99t-mean-you-gender-exclusive-language-ostracism[/url] Here's one that I read. These are incredibly long and will take time to process, but in the meantime you can read this one yourself. [editline]3rd April 2017[/editline] Here's another relevant article, that talks about creating and implementing new gender-neutral words in place of gender specific words. You could apply this to replacing "mankind" with "humankind". [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486751/[/url]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52056129]Master's in History and can't report any professor in this field giving a flying fuck about anything like this. Nor in my in my Undergraduate classes in Global Business, except for one professor who was a English Master's graduate that already cared way too much about things like the Oxford comma usage that she would remove points for. She even called people racist in class, since the students were pointing out people's accents being from different regions, despite the students being right, and also from the same country (India). And I know in some of my papers I have used the word mankind, manpower (Military History especially), and whatever potentially offensive word you could probably imagined. Gender neutral pronouns was never even discussed either. People just used whatever was appropriate and respectful. We never needed a forced rule to be respectful, since that was the expectation going into a business school (duh).[/QUOTE] History papers generally refer to known persons or groups, so the question of neutral language is typically out of the picture. It'd be a very, very specific history essay which would require the change and even then it'd be tying into a field of study which would be use neutral language anyway. It's not quite like social sciences where an abstract concept of 'humanity' is often used. The use of gendered terms is different if you're writing an essay on Napoleon than compared to audience participation in museums, for example. One is obviously going to use 'he' but the other has to be ambiguous seeing as men and women frequent museums.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52056424]History papers generally refer to known persons or groups, so the question of neutral language is typically out of the picture. It'd be a very, very specific history essay which would require the change and even then it'd be tying into a field of study which would be use neutral language anyway. It's not quite like social sciences where an abstract concept of 'humanity' is often used. The use of gendered terms is different if you're writing an essay on Napoleon than compared to audience participation in museums, for example. One is obviously going to use 'he' but the other has to be ambiguous seeing as men and women frequent museums.[/QUOTE] I was mostly referring to these contextual terms more than the gender pronoun debate. I have no problem with gender neutral pronouns where they make sense and aren't habitually forced. Quite simply, and I know some will be offended by this, historically there are almost no figures I can think of where you would need to use gender neutral pronouns. That and the simple reason that you generally know about the person's gender. But I have had my share of liberal art classes with abstract social papers that still didn't use this microscope of deducting points. Nor in my Global Business classes, which were nothing but teaching professionalism. Just know your audience and respect them. If I were writing to a Feminist convention and actually wanted to benefit from this relationship, I will use language that is beneficial to this group. Doesn't mean I like the group or agree with their worldview on language though. And if you are a professor that deducts points because you used "mankind" instead of using "humankind," they are probably PC assholes that you just have to deal with and pass the class. Which is awful that is how a university class can be carried out, but it will be the next generation of people to either champion this or counter culture it.

I think this is stupid, but not particularly surprising. I remember when I was in uni, I had a lecturer who deducted marks from us if we used contractions in our essays. Never mind if your analysis is valid and/or interesting, with relevant sources, if you wrote "can't" instead of "cannot", or "don't" instead of "do not", you're losing marks. Or should I say, you are losing marks, because even though there is no difference and you're feels and flows better, it was 'wrong' to that particular individual.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056278]Sure. [URL]http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/when-he-doesn’t-mean-you-gender-exclusive-language-ostracism[/URL] Here's one that I read. These are incredibly long and will take time to process, but in the meantime you can read this one yourself.[/QUOTE] Did you read the whole study? They did two experiments, with the second being an improvement on the first. The conclusion of the second experiment states: "The results of Experiment 2 provided some equivocal support for a theoretical link between the use of gender-exclusive language and ostracism. When learning about a potential professional environment, women (but not men) felt less included when that environment was described using gender-exclusive language relative to gender-inclusive or gender-neutral language. However, the three types of language did not have a differential effect on women and men’s reported job-based motivation, identification with the job, affective evaluation of the work environment, job-based competence and perceived support for professional development in the work environment... [B]this pattern of results is inconsistent with the hypothesized differential effect that the three language types would have on women and men’s reactions to the types of language used in the experiment.[/B]" At best, the study provides inconsistent results. At worst, it shows that gendered language doesn't have any consistent effect on men or women. The study also provides multiple other explanations outside of the gendered language, like the usage of what they call "masculine" terms like "fast paced" and "competitive." Also, the study didn't even have randomly chosen participants. It has some pretty big methodological issues. Here's the actual study:[URL]http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1288&context=theses[/URL] [editline]3rd April 2017[/editline] That summary page you linked is embarrassingly biased. Some of the points are directly contradicted by the study's results.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52056563]Did you read the whole study? They did two experiments, with the second being an improvement on the first. The conclusion of the second experiment states: "The results of Experiment 2 provided some equivocal support for a theoretical link between the use of gender-exclusive language and ostracism. When learning about a potential professional environment, women (but not men) felt less included when that environment was described using gender-exclusive language relative to gender-inclusive or gender-neutral language. However, the three types of language did not have a differential effect on women and men’s reported job-based motivation, identification with the job, affective evaluation of the work environment, job-based competence and perceived support for professional development in the work environment... [B]this pattern of results is inconsistent with the hypothesized differential effect that the three language types would have on women and men’s reactions to the types of language used in the experiment.[/B]" At best, the study provides inconsistent results. At worst, it shows that gendered language doesn't have any consistent effect on men or women. The study also provides multiple other explanations outside of the gendered language, like the usage of what they call "masculine" terms like "fast paced" and "competitive." Also, the study didn't even have randomly chosen participants. It has some pretty big methodological issues. Here's the actual study:[URL]http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1288&context=theses[/URL] [editline]3rd April 2017[/editline] That summary page you linked is embarrassingly biased. Some of the points are directly contradicted by the study's results.[/QUOTE] christ i'm going to have to dissect this incredibly misleading and time wasting post aren't i [quote]Two experiments examined the theorized link between the use of gender-exclusive language and ostracism. In two experiments, women and men read a job overview that contained either masculine gender-exclusive language (he), gender-inclusive language (he or she), or gender-neutral language (one). They then rated their feelings of exclusion (i.e., ostracism), described their personal investment in the described job (Experiments 1 and 2) and evaluated the work environment (Experiment 2). [/quote] [quote][B]In both experiments, women reported feeling most ostracized when they were exposed to gender-exclusive language[/B] compared to gender-inclusive language.[/quote] [quote]Furthermore, [B]women in Experiment 1 reported least personal investment in the job when exposed to gender-exclusive versus –inclusive language, but this pattern of results did not replicate in Experiment 2.[/B][/quote] The inconsistent results you're referring to is the personal investment part, which was explained later in the paper. [quote]If participants are made aware of their excluded status immediately before they report their personal investment in the domain, it is possible that their subsequent reports may be inflated in order to appear interested and competent, both to themselves and to their audience. Thus, by manipulating question order one can systematically vary when participants become aware of their excluded status (i.e., before or after the remaining dependent variables), which in turn will allow this research program to examine the extent to which one must be conscious of ostracism in order to be negatively affected by it.[/quote] Experiment 1 just had the job application stuff. Experiment 2 had job application, then work environment stuff. In both experiments, women felt excluded when people used exclusively "he". That's the important part and the whole point of why you should use gender neutral wording in your essay when it's appropriate. Someone said "know your audience", and if your audience is men and women, then design your essay around men and women. [editline]4[/editline] As for the credibility of the participants. [quote]One-hundred-and-sixty-nine undergraduate participants (73 men and 96 women) volunteered in lieu of extra course credit. Four women and one man guessed the purpose of the experiment and were excluded from analyses, leaving a final sample of N = 164 (72 men and 92 women) whose data were analyzed.[/quote]

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52055386][QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52054355]Please explain to me, in 250 words or less, 1) how the words manpower and manmade are gendered and not gender-neutral already, and 2) if they are, an equal gender-neutral synonym that is similarly succinct[/QUOTE]250 words is nothing for such a topic.[/QUOTE] To be honest you seem pretty bad at writing anything because you said 250 words is nothing to answer this and you [B]barely[/B] even scratched the topic with the last quote. None of the things you posted explain how manpower and manmade are not gender-neutral. All you do in this thread is strawman [B]constantly[/B]. People are taking issue with 'mankind', 'manpower' and 'manmade' and you keep talking about he/she over, and over, and over again. NOBODY IS CONTESTING THAT. You are not addressing what people are saying to you at all. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056696]christ i'm going to have to dissect this incredibly misleading and time wasting post aren't i The inconsistent results you're referring to is the personal investment part, which was explained later in the paper. Experiment 1 just had the job application stuff. Experiment 2 had job application, then work environment stuff. In both experiments, women felt excluded when people used exclusively "he". That's the important part and the whole point of why you should use gender neutral wording in your essay when it's appropriate. Someone said "know your audience", and if your audience is men and women, then design your essay around men and women. [editline]4[/editline] As for the credibility of the participants.[/QUOTE] And here you are posting a study on the usage of he/she/one. AGAIN not on topic.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52054361]Gender pronouns should just be written as whatever makes sense. I have no problems with this area except forcing the usage of "They" when it starts to get confusing on singular/plural meaning. Use whatever you want on this, but it probably be easier for the majority of people to understand "that person" then "Xir" or whatever constructed gender-neutral people rarely use.[/QUOTE] My understanding was that they meant for words such as 'one' , 'they' etc to be used to refer to unknown genders, not the whole xhe stuff. Which, to me seems like a perfectly fine request. Isn't that just enforcing correct grammar?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52056789]To be honest you seem pretty bad at writing anything because you said 250 words is nothing to answer this and you [B]barely[/B] even scratched the topic with the last quote. None of the things you posted explain how manpower and manmade are not gender-neutral. All you do in this thread is strawman [B]constantly[/B]. People are taking issue with 'mankind', 'manpower' and 'manmade' and you keep talking about he/she over, and over, and over again. NOBODY IS CONTESTING THAT. You are not addressing what people are saying to you at all. And here you are posting a study on the usage of he/she/one. AGAIN not on topic.[/QUOTE] Sgman1 requested this [QUOTE=sgman91;52056133]Can someone point to a real life example where an author didn't use gender inclusive language to the detriment of the article and/or essay?[/QUOTE] And you're complaining that posting a study showing that not using gender-inclusive language is off topic. And I haven't strawmanned anyone. Hell my entire argument with that other person was an argument about how the source article is relevant to discussion if that's what you're referring to as a strawman. I can't complain or explain on behalf of others so I was providing scientific evidence showing that using gender-exclusive language does have an impact on women. I personally don't know the impact the words "mankind" has on women. Could be marginal, could be nothing. All it takes is a few strokes to change the word "mankind" to something less boring like "humanity" or "humankind" which isn't a problem to me so I don't care.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52052650]I don't see the problem, you might have only used a male pronouns in your first sentence but that does not automatically exclude people of the opposite sex if you ask me. If you want to exclude them i would use a sentence something along the lines of this: "If any men does this, then he would be given an award"[/QUOTE] So is the award for men only? If it is, then that is correct. If it is not, then it is not correct. For instance: When talking about historical US presidents: The male only plural is correct. While talking about Nobel prizes, the male only plural is incorrect.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056855]Sgman1 requested this And you're complaining that posting a study showing that not using gender-inclusive language is off topic.[/QUOTE] Alright then. This study wasn't off topic, someone requested it. I was wrong about this one. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056855]And I haven't strawmanned anyone. Hell my entire argument with that other person was an argument about how the source article is relevant to discussion if that's what you're referring to as a strawman. I can't complain or explain on behalf of others so I was providing scientific evidence showing that using gender-exclusive language does have an impact on women. I personally don't know the impact the words "mankind" has on women. Could be marginal, could be nothing. All it takes is a few strokes to change the word "mankind" to something less boring like "humanity" or "humankind" which isn't a problem to me so I don't care.[/QUOTE] Grey Altoid asked to explain in 250 words or less how are manpower and manmade gendered and not gender-neutral to which you posted 4 quotes mainly about the usage of he/she/one. SadisticGecko was talking about availability of the article AND mankind as well. And you were talking to him about availability of the article and he/she again. He even called you out on this and told you to go back 3 pages and re-read his posts, and you ignored that remark. Again, people are taking issue with the words like 'mankind', 'manpower' and 'manmade' and they are fine with using "one" instead of "he" when a person is unknown, but he/she/one is ALL you keep talking about. And now that we are on topic why are "manpower" and "manmade" not gender neutral, why is that word a problem and what "few strokes" do I have to make to change "manpower" and "manmande" to something "less boring"? Please don't go to great lengths about he/she/one this time.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52056919]Alright then. This study wasn't off topic, someone requested it. I was wrong about this one. Grey Altoid asked to explain in 250 words or less how are manpower and manmade gendered and not gender-neutral to which you posted 4 quotes mainly about the usage of he/she/one. SadisticGecko was talking about availability of the article AND mankind as well. And you were talking to him about availability of the article and he/she again. He even called you out on this and told you to go back 3 pages and re-read his posts, and you ignored that remark. Again, people are taking issue with the words like 'mankind', 'manpower' and 'manmade' and they are fine with using "one" instead of "he" when a person is unknown, but he/she/one is ALL you keep talking about. And now that we are on topic why are "manpower" and "manmade" not gender neutral, why is that word a problem and what "few strokes" do I have to make to change "manpower" and "manmande" to something "less boring"? Please don't go to great lengths about he/she/one this time.[/QUOTE] You seem to be assuming that the English language we use right now is static and not subject to change. Similar changes have occurred with the word coloured to describe black people for example and although that word having a more serious background is obvious cause, this is clearly the same logic. If the word 'mankind' becomes increasingly associated with sexism or whatever it might be, then naturally the language changes to fit the times. I don't get why so many of you are so mad about this. I'm sure 60 years ago I could have asked you to tell me in 250 words or less why the word 'coloured' is racist and you'd be at a loss. That and you've fabricated an argument based on an entirely sensational article.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52056940]You seem to be assuming that the English language we use right now is static and not subject to change. Similar changes have occurred with the word coloured to describe black people for example and although that word having a more serious background is obvious cause, this is clearly the same logic. If the word 'mankind' becomes increasingly associated with sexism or whatever it might be, then naturally the language changes to fit the times. I don't get why so many of you are taking issue with this. I'm sure 60 years ago I could have asked you to tell me in 250 words or less why the word 'coloured' is racist and you'd be at a loss.[/QUOTE] 1. You could not have been more condescending, could you? First you said that I assume something utterly stupid and then you explained to me like to a 5 year old that language changes. Seriously what kind of complete moron do you think I am to explain this to me? 2. Your answer to "why is manpower not gender-neutral and why is that word a problem" is "well language changes"? How does that make sense? 3. "coloured" is a blanket statement to talk about people who are not white. It's exclusionary and in time became derogatory. You have to explain to me now how is "manmade" and "manpower" exclusionary to women if your analogy is to make any sense.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52056967]1. You could not have been more condescending, could you? First you said that I assume something utterly stupid and then you explained to me like to a 5 year old that language changes. Seriously what kind of complete moron do you think I am to explain this to me? 2. Your answer to "why is manpower not gender-neutral and why is that word a problem" is "well language changes"? How does that make sense? 3. "coloured" is a blanket statement to talk about people who are not white. It's exclusionary and in time became derogatory. You have to explain to me now how is "manmade" and "manpower" exclusionary to women if your analogy is to make any sense.[/QUOTE] I didn't mean to be condescending if that's what you got from it, I just try to explain myself clearly. And thanks for explaining why coloured is derogatory and 'exclusionary', because that exact same explanation I think could logically be applied to the word mankind. That is literally what I just said. You didn't disagree with anything I said, you just asked how it makes sense. Well I can't explain that clearer, if you can't see how humankind can be a gender neutral version of MANkind I dunno what else to say. Maybe you don't agree that mankind has any connotation behind it as it naturally refers to everyone but as I said, language changes. [editline]4th April 2017[/editline] I misread you talking about manpower as mankind. I dunno if such a word exists as a neutral alternative to manpower so if not I dunno where you go from there. But I think my argument for mankind sticks.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52056980]I didn't mean to be condescending if that's what you got from it, I just try to explain myself clearly. And thanks for explaining why coloured is derogatory and 'exclusionary', because that exact same explanation I think could logically be applied to the word mankind. That is literally what I just said. You didn't disagree with anything I said, you just asked how it makes sense. Well I can't explain that clearer, I explained the logic and it definitely does make sense.[/QUOTE] 1. I asked you how does answering my question with "language changes" make sense. 2. You didn't "literally" just say that manpower is exclusionary, you didn't even use that word in your post. 3. Again, you have to explain now how is manpower exclusionary. As I asked in my previous post. "coloured" was applied to people who are not white. It's exclusionary by design. "Manpower" refers to workers, [B]man[/B]ual [B]power[/B] available, not just male workers. [QUOTE=Crumpet;52056980]Well I can't explain that clearer, if you can't see how humankind can be a gender neutral version of MANkind I dunno what else to say. I misread you talking about manpower as mankind. I dunno if such a word exists as a neutral alternative to manpower so if not I dunno where you go from there. But I think my argument for mankind sticks.[/QUOTE] Yes I see that it's a gender neutral version. But I don't see the issue with mankind in the first place. Man also refers to humans in general. "a small step for man" does not mean "a small step for MALES". And it's not a natural change of the language like you are making it look like. It's a conscious effort to change this meaning. It's not happening everywhere, certain groups are pushing it.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52057005]1. I asked you how does answering my question with "language changes" make sense. 2. You didn't "literally" just say that manpower is exclusionary, you didn't even use that word in your post. 3. Again, you have to explain now how is manpower exclusionary. As I asked in my previous post. "coloured" was applied to people who are not white. It's exclusionary by design. "Manpower" refers to workers, [B]man[/B]ual [B]power[/B] available, not just male workers.[/QUOTE] I've been talking about mankind - I guess my edit didn't go through in time. The word coloured only became exclusionary because of the segregatory context. Mankind is not a contraction unlike manpower (manual power) and instead uses the word man literally. The word humankind has existed as a neutral alternative for a hell of a long time. Manpower, I have nothing to say. I did concede earlier in the thread that a couple of these were dumb. [editline]4th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;52057005] Yes I see that it's a gender neutral version. But I don't see the issue with mankind in the first place. Man also refers to humans in general. "a small step for man" does not mean "a small step for MALES". And it's not a natural change of the language like you are making it look like. It's a conscious effort to change this meaning. It's not happening everywhere, certain groups are pushing it.[/QUOTE] Is the word man referring to humans generally not inherently exclusionary? I've been tripping over my words because I'm at work but that is my main point.

Mankind was first written down ~1100-1200 AD, with some usage probably prior to that since we can't be 100% when it first came to be. However, what we do know is that it came from the older usage of man which was at gender neutral term (though was used at times to refer strictly to males). Wer and Wif were used to denote gender - Wer being male and Wif being female.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52057018] Is the word man referring to humans generally not inherently exclusionary? I've been tripping over my words because I'm at work but that is my main point.[/QUOTE] [quote=http://www.etymonline.com] man (n.) Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero; servant, vassal," from Proto-Germanic *manwaz (source also of Old Saxon, Swedish, Dutch, Old High German man, German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Danish mand, Gothic manna "man"), from PIE root *man- (1) "man" (source also of Sanskrit manuh, Avestan manu-, Old Church Slavonic mozi, Russian muzh "man, male"). Plural men (German Männer) shows effects of i-mutation. Sometimes connected to root *men- (1) "to think" (see mind (n.)), which would make the ground sense of man "one who has intelligence," but not all linguists accept this. Liberman, for instance, writes, "Most probably man 'human being' is a secularized divine name" from Mannus [Tacitus, "Germania," chap. 2], "believed to be the progenitor of the human race." So I am as he that seythe, 'Come hyddr John, my man.' [1473] Sense of "adult male" is late (c. 1000); Old English used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind and manslaughter. Similarly, Latin had homo "human being" and vir "adult male human being," but they merged in Vulgar Latin, with homo extended to both senses. A like evolution took place in Slavic languages, and in some of them the word has narrowed to mean "husband." PIE had two stems: *uiHro "freeman" (source of Sanskrit vira-, Lithuanian vyras, Latin vir, Old Irish fer, Gothic wair) and *hner "man," a title more of honor than *uiHro (source of Sanskrit nar-, Armenian ayr, Welsh ner, Greek aner). MANTRAP, a woman's commodity. [Grose, "Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue," London, 1785] Man also was in Old English as an indefinite pronoun, "one, people, they." The chess pieces so called from c. 1400. As an interjection of surprise or emphasis, first recorded c. 1400, but especially popular from early 20c. Man-about-town is from 1734; the Man "the boss" is from 1918. To be man or mouse "be brave or be timid" is from 1540s. Men's Liberation first attested 1970. At the kinges court, my brother, Ech man for himself. [Chaucer, "Knight's Tale," c. 1386][/quote] [quote=http://www.etymonline.com] mankind (n.) Look up mankind at Dictionary.com "the human race," c. 1300, earlier man-kende (early 13c.), from man (n.) + kind (n.). Replaced Old English mancynn "human race." Also used occasionally in Middle English for "male persons" (late 14c.), but [B]otherwise preserving the original gender neutrality of man (n.). For "menfolk, the male sex," menkind (late 14c.) and menskind (1590s) have been used.[/B][/quote] Mankind was never intended as the "kind of male humans" or that the human kind is defined by it's males. Mankind was always meant to be used for both male and female. It was created when wer and wif were still used to distinguish the sexes and "man" meant a person, be that male or female just like bdd458 said. Mankind and manslaughter uses that original meaning of "man". We still use "man" in this sense. Nobody understands "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" as "That's one small step for a cismale, one giant leap for human race that's defined by it's males" other than complete ideologues. Also[I] you seem to be assuming that the English language we use right now has always been like this, is static and not subject to change.[/I]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52057396]Mankind was never intended as the "kind of male humans" or that the human kind is defined by it's males. Mankind was always meant to be used for both male and female. It was created when wer and wif were still used to distinguish the sexes and "man" meant a person, be that male or female just like bdd458 said. Mankind and manslaughter uses that original meaning of "man". We still use "man" in this sense. Nobody understands "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" as "That's one small step for a cismale, one giant leap for human race that's defined by it's males" other than complete ideologues. Also[I] you seem to be assuming that the English language we use right now has always been like this, is static and not subject to change.[/I][/QUOTE] Thanks for the correction there, I never checked the etymology of man so yes, in that case I did wrongfully make that assumption. You're still doing the exact same thing though. On the flipside of that same argument, is this case here not proof that a shift is occurring (forcefully or not)? It's not the first article on such a thing I've seen. Harking back to the word 'colored', I'm sure the idea of it being an offensive word met resistance from people saying exactly what you're saying about mankind now. Hell, even the NAACP said in 2008 that "the term 'colored' is not derogatory, [the NAACP] chose the word 'colored' because[B] it was the most positive description commonly used[/B] [in 1909, when the association was founded]. It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive." It seems to me the same logic that forced the word colored out of standard vocabulary is being applied to this situation.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52057448]Thanks for the correction there, I never checked the etymology of man so yes, in that case I did wrongfully make that assumption. On the flipside of that exact same argument though, is this very case here not proof that a shift is occurring (forcefully or not)? Harking back to the word 'colored', I'm sure the idea of it being an offensive word met resistance from people saying exactly what you're saying about mankind now. Hell, even the NAACP said in 2008 that "the term 'colored' is not derogatory, [the NAACP] chose the word 'colored' because[B] it was the most positive description commonly used[/B] [in 1909, when the association was founded]. It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive." It seems to me the same logic that forced the word colored out of standard vocabulary is being applied to this situation.[/QUOTE] It's not the same logic though. I've been trying to tell you. "Coloured" is exclusionary because it's meant to say "person who [B]isn't[/B] white". It's exclusionary by design from the beginning. I can see why it could start to be considered unfavorable or derogatory over time. But the fact that it's exclusionary never changed. Mankind on the other hand was designed to talk about both men and women. Because when it was made "man" meant both. Only later "man" started to also mean "male adult" but man still does mean "human", as per the one small step example. See the difference? Coloured was always exclusionary. In mankind the "man" part changed meaning, or rather got another meaning while also still retaining the original one. It's not fair to compare these. Mankind was never meant to be exclusionary, it was meant to talk about everyone. But going with the change of language I can see mankind being naturally replaced by humankind and I have no issue with it. It can become outdated but not offensive by any means. Anyone trying to make it a sexist issue is trying way too hard. So that's "mankind" becoming outdated because "man" has changed the meaning but the "man" in "manpower" did not. That's a different thing altogether. Trying to push manpower and manmade out of language because "sexism!" is just being a busybody. Oh and also, if "mankind" is exclusionary then manslaughter is exclusionary as well.

I'm all out of steam to continue this and I've ended up arguing for things I don't even believe myself or even know about in the heat of the moment. My original intention was to convince people that a natural progression towards the neutral 'humankind' was eventually inevitable, and that it totally makes sense that this change would begin to occur in a place as sensitive to professionalism and correct language usage as some academic institute, and so it is no cause for the anger seen in this thread. At least we somewhat agree there. I also agree that [quote]Trying to push manpower and man-made out of language because "sexism!" is just being a busybody [/quote], to an extent, and probably should have clarified that stance in the beginning. Though I still disagree that the exclusionary nature of colored is to be seen as negative. It only became negative in the context it was applied, so I think that's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. If people are fronting this change, and a correct alternative is available, it makes sense that the word becomes antiquated and something takes its place as the correct term.

Basically, this whole issue stems down to two trains of thought: "'Mankind,' 'manpowered,' etc. is a gendered word, we need to phase out the word by force because man implies cismale because i look at words literally, use humankind instead which somehow doesn't have the same issue because 'hu' is in front of 'man' so its okay somehow" "Lol no it isn't, man is not a gendered word when referring to humanity, the root word 'manos' means hand, stop being so black and white about language, english is context dependant. you can't force change like this because of dumb reasons. language changes over time but trying to force a change is just being a busybody" And nobody is arguing about he/she/they because we all agree when you don't know the gender of a person you don't assume it.

Those that can't do teach. Let them have their input, the majority of it will continue to be ignored in the private sector.

You've all mad a colossal stinky over practices that have existed in most high ranking colleges for upwards of 2 decades, congrats.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52054125]It's not that it "really matters", but that formal writing is very, very specific in terminology.[/QUOTE] "Mankind", "manpower", and "manmade" [i]are[/i] specific terms. There's no reason to "frown upon" them as the article mentioned the way academic officials can and sometimes do. Personally, I've never experienced this issue, but maybe I've just been lucky. I've heard other people discuss this being a problem in classes they've had though, and it's fucking stupid. There are more significant things to be worrying about than whether or not "policeman", "fireman", "manhole", "mankind", "manmade", etc. are sexist. They are not. People need to stop creating problems where there aren't any. These are perfectly normal words, they are descriptive, every person who speaks English should be familiar with them and be able to understand them in whatever context, etc. OR we can just use neutral terms for everything so we don't offend anybody. I suggest [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzq4YDt7V-o]"marklar"[/url].

this happened to me in an editing quiz earlier this semester. Corrected "each student must take his..." instead of "...his or her..." and was marked wrong despite context being vague. Only thing that stopped me from taking it to higher ups was me being on relatively good terms with the teacher.

in all of my media writing classes, we are taught to avoid using gendered nouns wherever possible. not only is it a stylistic thing, but it's part of the Associated Press Handbook, which virtually every single English-speaking publication in the world uses. granted, this is media writing, but I can imagine a social curriculum at a university would have similar implementations. certainly not worthy of all the hub-bub it seems to be causing