Is “man” an offensive word?

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I can see your point. But you’re applying your reasoning in a way I totally disagree with. In my view you can’t apply your reasoning across the board.
We should address unfairness and bias wherever it exists.
But when it comes to football, and other sports, we have a separation of the genders for good reason. Everyone is happy with that and wouldn’t want want to try and blend the two.
So there’s no discrimination and no disservice to women when talking about men’s football. We can’t deny it’s a thing. There’s the men’s game and there’s the women’s game. We can address inequality such as women’s football earnings and tv coverage etc. But the answer to gender inequality in football isn’t to somehow pretend that men aren’t men.

When I watch athletics we have the men’s and women’s separate 100m races. Other distances and events too.
They don’t yet have an issue with announcing that the next race is the men’s 100m. There may be an issue that it’s seen as the gold ribbon event and it’s the main event of the evening at say a Diamond League meeting. Historically the men’s 100m has attracted more kudos than the women’s equivalent. But the solution to that inequality isn’t to stop using the word man. That’s ridiculous. And totally ineffective. And discriminatory.
You don’t solve deep rooted societal discrimination by discriminating against the discriminators.
You solve it by bringing all up to the same level. Not by diluting the gender identity of men.

Why does changing terminology or simple words and phrases ‘dilute the gender identity of men’? If anything these changes reinforce the gender identity of men by no longer using men and man as both specific and generic terms (that is to mean ‘person’ and ‘male person’)

Also (and as I’ve already said) the nature of our existing language with the male form dominating in every respect does reinforce a hierarchical structure where ‘men’ sit at the top … That’s not our fault of course and it’s something we’ve inherited, but that doesn’t mean it has to stay that way forever.

I understand fully that we have chosen to separate the male & female genders in sport (whether there are alternatives to that is also a matter for debate). That doesn’t necessitate the need for gender based sporting terminology though does it? At junior level for example, both male & female might be on the same team… So surely inclusive and generic terminology makes more sense ?


As I said earlier there’s a genuine argument to change the terminology throughout our language and use a word(s) to describe us blokes that share equivalence with the female terms. As suggested (hemale, homan, homen etc..) we can then use man, men, male as a general (no gendered) term to mean person

 

[Malced]

Why does changing terminology or simple words and phrases ‘dilute the gender identity of men’? If anything these changes reinforce the gender identity of men by no longer using men and man as both specific and generic terms (that is to mean ‘person’ and ‘male person’)

Also (and as I’ve already said) the nature of our existing language with the male form dominating in every respect does reinforce a hierarchical structure where ‘men’ sit at the top … That’s not our fault of course and it’s something we’ve inherited, but that doesn’t mean it has to stay that way forever.

I understand fully that we have chosen to separate the male & female genders in sport (whether there are alternatives to that is also a matter for debate). That doesn’t necessitate the need for gender based sporting terminology though does it? At junior level for example, both male & female might be on the same team… So surely inclusive and generic terminology makes more sense ?


As I said earlier there’s a genuine argument to change the terminology throughout our language and use a word(s) to describe us blokes that share equivalence with the female terms. As suggested (hemale, homan, homen etc..) we can then use man, men, male as a general (no gendered) term to mean person

I think you’ve lost the plot.

So let’s leave the debate to separating men’s and women’s sports for another day. In this day we have them separated.

Now what’s your new way to describe the Men’s 100m and the Women’s 100m? You do realise they will need separate descriptors? Whatever way you do it there’ll be a unique reference to what were formerly known as men. That new term will inherit all the apparent toxicity with it cos at the end of the day it’s the new term for errr ….. MEN!

Maybe instead of trying to remove anything that suggests women and men are two separate things, we should find an actual way to solve discrimination. I’d strongly suggest that will need something real, rather than merely removing the word man from our vocabulary. That’s less of a silver bullet and more like firing blanks.

 

[Wilburrabbit]

I think you’ve lost the plot.

So let’s leave the debate to separating men’s and women’s sports for another day. In this day we have them separated.

Now what’s your new way to describe the Men’s 100m and the Women’s 100m? You do realise they will need separate descriptors? Whatever way you do it there’ll be a unique reference to what were formerly known as men. That new term will inherit all the apparent toxicity with it cos at the end of the day it’s the new term for errr ….. MEN!

Or perhaps we do away with gender segregation altogether. It’s a shame but I doubt you would see another female sportsperson at all if that were the case

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I think you’ve lost the plot.

So let’s leave the debate to separating men’s and women’s sports for another day. In this day we have them separated.

Now what’s your new way to describe the Men’s 100m and the Women’s 100m? You do realise they will need separate descriptors? Whatever way you do it there’ll be a unique reference to what were formerly known as men. That new term will inherit all the apparent toxicity with it cos at the end of the day it’s the new term for errr ….. MEN!

I may have lost the plot

Although in fairness it’s all factual stuff… And I do wonder if the roles were reversed, whether us hemales would be happy about playing second fiddle.

If we agree sport is gender separated, then there’s no harm is using appropriate pronouns when referring to the individual, but you just use non-specific terms for the group.

In 100M you’d just call them runners as we pretty much do already.

 

[Malced]

Or perhaps we do away with gender segregation altogether. It’s a shame but I doubt you would see another female sportsperson at all if that were the case

Exactly. But we’re doing it for their betterment
Sorry ladies, you ain’t got a chance in sports anymore but we did it cos we imagined our language was hurting your feelings.
Oh the irony of men coming up with solutions to make women’s lives better

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Why does this bother you ?

Yet it bothers nobody to say ‘player’s player of the season’

 

[Malced]

I may have lost the plot

Although in fairness it’s all factual stuff… And I do wonder if the roles were reversed, whether us hemales would be happy about playing second fiddle.

If we agree sport is gender separated, then there’s no harm is using appropriate pronouns when referring to the individual, but you just use non-specific terms for the group.

In 100M you’d just call them runners as we pretty much do already.

Now we don’t pretty much do that. We have separately named races so all athletes know when they’re due to race. The way we sensibly do that is be saying it’s the men’s 100m at 4pm and the women’s at 5pm. Over the course of an athletics event with heats etc it would be incredibly confusing if we didn’t say clearly which race was for which runners. Sorry but that’s the real world.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Now we don’t pretty much do that. We have separately named races so all athletes know when they’re due to race. The way we sensibly do that is be saying it’s the men’s 100m at 4pm and the women’s at 5pm. Over the course of an athletics event with heats etc it would be incredibly confusing if we didn’t say clearly which race was for which runners. Sorry but that’s the real world.

Yes of course we define the race itself it terms of what it is… though we might in future change to homen’s 100m and women’s 100m

But we call the people involved in the races ‘athletes’ or ‘runners’ / ‘sprinters’. You would say ‘The athletes are lining up for the race’ same as you’d say “the player’s are coming out onto the pitch” in football.

 

[Alf]

I genuinely can’t understand why this is so triggering.

As a 35 year old man who has been living in wokey London I have never felt like my gender identity is under threat, or that I can’t call myself a man or associate with being a male.

What the media decides to call footballers really doesn’t bother me, it’s a bit silly sometimes perhaps but it’s not worth getting angry about in my opinion. Some might call that spineless, I’d just say I’m comfortable enough not to feel threatened by it.

Exactly my point. Malced and others seem to think this threat is inherent and obvious, but don’t feel the need to actually explain where the threat is coming from. It’s one huge leap from Sam Smith saying something a bit silly, to the word man being under threat, to masculinity as a concept being under threat, to freedom of identity itself being under threat. It’s saying ‘Nobody must be allowed to set their own identity, so that my fragile male identity can survive, because its survival depends not on my own resilience but on the acquiescence and conformity of non-binary people to a generally accepted status quo that I feel comfortable with’. It’s cab driver logic at best ‘if we carry on like this society is going to the dogs’ type shit, with absolutely no justification. It just wreaks of insecurity.

Furthermore, I don’t think anybody has actually watched that Sam Smith clip. Symptom of the times. The headlines are far worse than the reality. I actually can’t stand the guy for various reasons but in this case I think he was being a little tongue in cheek. As others have pointed out angler or whatever would be a more appropriate term - but I think the wry smile on his face indicates Sam probably knows that. It’s not like he takes offence and gets angry for being misidentified. He just laughs a bit and says the silly thing.

 

[Malced]

Yet it bothers nobody to say ‘player’s player of the season’

No it doesn’t bother anyone because that’s the language we use.
Just as we’ve always said man of the match. Which also shouldn’t bother anyone. If they said man of the match in relation to the women’s game that would be cause for complaint.

 

[Wizaard]

I think you’ve lost the plot.

So let’s leave the debate to separating men’s and women’s sports for another day. In this day we have them separated.

Now what’s your new way to describe the Men’s 100m and the Women’s 100m? You do realise they will need separate descriptors? Whatever way you do it there’ll be a unique reference to what were formerly known as men. That new term will inherit all the apparent toxicity with it cos at the end of the day it’s the new term for errr ….. MEN!

Maybe instead of trying to remove anything that suggests women and men are two separate things, we should find an actual way to solve discrimination. I’d strongly suggest that will need something real, rather than merely removing the word man from our vocabulary. That’s less of a silver bullet and more like firing blanks.

Not a single person has called for the Men's and Women's 100 metres to be called anything but that.

You do realise they don't need to be called anything else?

The IAAF has recently been quite specific that transgender athletes can't compete in Women's events.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

No it doesn’t bother anyone because that’s the language we use.
Just as we’ve always said man of the match. Which also shouldn’t bother anyone. If they said man of the match in relation to the women’s game that would be cause for complaint.

But “Man of the Match” is a gender specific term ‘exclusive’ it necessitates us to create gender specific terms for others ‘woman of the match’ total nonsense … “Player of The Match” is a dead easy change…. It also fits better with a Player of the Year and so on… The reason we started to use ‘Man’ was likely that it tripped off the tongue being an alliteration… Just change it… sorted

 

[Malced]

But “Man of the Match” is a gender specific term ‘exclusive’ it necessitates us to create gender specific terms for others ‘woman of the match’ total nonsense … “Player of The Match” is a dead easy change…. It also fits better with a Player of the Year and so on… The reason we started to use ‘Man’ was likely that it tripped off the tongue being an alliteration… Just change it… sorted

Yeah and men’s 100m is gender specific as it need to be and doesn’t need to be changed. Sorted.
So there’s the nonsense of it.
Or you can have your solution which is the homen’s 100 m and the women’s 100m. So different terms. One for men and one for women. So we’re right back where we were. You’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, but if it did exist you’d have created the exact same problem.

 

[Malced]

Not a single person has called for the Men's and Women's 100 metres to be called anything but that.

You do realise they don't need to be called anything else?

The IAAF has recently been quite specific that transgender athletes can't compete in Women's events.

Oh I see. We’re all on with the word ‘man’ if some body says it’s ok. But across elsewhere in society it’s offensive.
The Uni in America that are banning the word ‘man’ wouldn’t be happy with the IAAF as the word man is offensive to them.

 

[Wizaard]

Oh I see. We’re all on with the word ‘man’ if some body says it’s ok. But across elsewhere in society it’s offensive.
The Uni in America that are banning the word ‘man’ wouldn’t be happy with the IAAF as the word man is offensive to them.

Why get so upset about it? It really doesn't make a ha'ppnorth of difference to your or my life.

 

[Malced]

Exactly my point. Malced and others seem to think this threat is inherent and obvious, but don’t feel the need to actually explain where the threat is coming from. It’s one huge leap from Sam Smith saying something a bit silly, to the word man being under threat, to masculinity as a concept being under threat, to freedom of identity itself being under threat. It’s saying ‘Nobody must be allowed to set their own identity, so that my fragile male identity can survive, because its survival depends not on my own resilience but on the acquiescence and conformity of non-binary people to a generally accepted status quo that I feel comfortable with’. It’s cab driver logic at best ‘if we carry on like this society is going to the dogs’ type shit, with absolutely no justification. It just wreaks of insecurity.

Furthermore, I don’t think anybody has actually watched that Sam Smith clip. Symptom of the times. The headlines are far worse than the reality. I actually can’t stand the guy for various reasons but in this case I think he was being a little tongue in cheek. As others have pointed out angler or whatever would be a more appropriate term - but I think the wry smile on his face indicates Sam probably knows that. It’s not like he takes offence and gets angry for being misidentified. He just laughs a bit and says the silly thing.

So someone else’s point is exactly your point. I’m glad you finally got it out there even though you needed help.
That’s better than what you managed to articulate yourself earlier in the thread - which was its only language. It doesn’t matter. Whilst at the same time contradicting yourself by supporting those that want to change language because it matters. You’re the sharpest on here.

 

[Malced]

Why get so upset about it? It really doesn't make a ha'ppnorth of difference to your or my life.

I’m not upset. I have an opinion and I choose to express it. It’s all good debate. I’m all for change it’s for the betterment of society and if it makes sense and if it’s necessary. But some of these language changes being imposed are silly and nonsense. As with the language used for pregnant people and mother father etc etc.
There’s various examples which have impinged on women’s rights and where we’ve needed female MPs and others to raise objections and have the nonsense reversed. It’s not just language. Before you know it you see male rapists being put into women’s prisons.
But we could have said oh well who cares and just accepted it.

 

[Alf]

So someone else’s point is exactly your point. I’m glad you finally got it out there even though you needed help.
That’s better than what you managed to articulate yourself earlier in the thread - which was its only language. It doesn’t matter. Whilst at the same time contradicting yourself by supporting those that want to change language because it matters. You’re the sharpest on here.

I’m just not interested in debating you directly as you come off as nasty and defensive, and your main tactic is to bait me by purposefully, repeatedly misrepresenting my point. My degree is in philosophy, I avoid debating with people who can’t. But it’s an interesting discussion I’m glad to have with any well-balanced individual.

 

[Malced]

I’m just not interested in debating you directly as you come off as nasty and defensive, and your main tactic is to bait me by purposefully, repeatedly misrepresenting my point. My degree is in philosophy, I avoid debating with people who can’t. But it’s an interesting discussion I’m glad to have with any well-balanced individual.

I bait you purposely you say. This coming from the man who refers to my cab driving as if it’s a measure of one’s intelligence. Another contradiction. But thanks for telling me about your degree. I’m sure that puts you on some pedestal if only in your own head.

 

[Alf]

I bait you purposely you say. This coming from the man who refers to my cab driving as if it’s a measure of one’s intelligence. Another contradiction. But thanks for telling me about your degree. I’m sure that puts you on some pedestal if only in your own head.

Wow I didn’t know you actually drive a cab sorry, it wasn’t meant to be a personal dig. And it’s not the degree but the topic. You wouldn’t want to talk to me about the taxi business as I know fuck all about it. All this to say, I don’t want to argue with you. If that means I’m not allowed to talk about the issue with anybody then It’s a small price to pay, have a good thread everybody

 

[Malced]

Wow I didn’t know you actually drive a cab sorry, it wasn’t meant to be a personal dig. And it’s not the degree but the topic. You wouldn’t want to talk to me about the taxi business as I know fuck all about it. All this to say, I don’t want to argue with you. If that means I’m not allowed to talk about the issue with anybody then It’s a small price to pay, have a good thread everybody

Fair enough. I didn’t mean to come across nasty and defensive. It’s my writing style which can sometimes be a little harsh I admit. But it’s not personal. I’m passionate about any topic I get involved in and I enjoy the debate. No hard feelings hopefully.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Yeah and men’s 100m is gender specific as it need to be and doesn’t need to be changed. Sorted.
So there’s the nonsense of it.
Or you can have your solution which is the homen’s 100 m and the women’s 100m. So different terms. One for men and one for women. So we’re right back where we were. You’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, but if it did exist you’d have created the exact same problem.

You’re missing the point… The 100 m reference is only gender specific as is necessary to define the competition. The competitors are still athletes and the winner is the gold medalist.

In comparison term like MOM or ‘down to ten men’ are unnecessary gender specific terms that can easily be changed with no impact at all.

Edit: I do also think that homen and hemale is a more equal term for blokes. Or alternatively we could completely flip things on their head and allow us to appreciate how it feels to be referenced as a derivative as opposed to primary

 

[Malced]

You’re missing the point… The 100 m reference is only gender specific as is necessary to define the competition. The competitors are still athletes and the winner is the gold medalist.

In comparison term like MOM or ‘down to ten men’ are unnecessary gender specific terms that can easily be changed with no impact at all.

Edit: I do also think that homen and hemale is a more equal term for blokes. Or alternatively we could completely flip things on their head and allow us to appreciate how it feels to be referenced as a derivative as opposed to primary

I don’t think I’m missing the point. We seem to be very much in agreement that there’s rightly things that are gender specific. Whether we keep the term ‘man’ or replace it with something else to signify a male, it’s still an issue. It’s not the word or the term, it’s the meaning of the word that’s the issue.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I don’t think I’m missing the point. We seem to be very much in agreement that there’s rightly things that are gender specific. Whether we keep the term ‘man’ or replace it with something else to signify a male, it’s still an issue. It’s not the word or the term, it’s the meaning of the word that’s the issue.

There are competitions that are gender specific, there are also competitions that are age specific, or otherwise defined... So for example "England U 21's", "Blackpool Reserves" ... I don't see a problem in giving a particular competition a definition so that it enables us to know what it is we are about to watch, that makes sense.

I do also think that it is largely beneficial to have separate competition for men and women (for obvious reasons).

I also think that terms like 'Man of the Match' and 'Down to Ten Men' can be modified to 'Player of the Match' and 'Down to Ten Players' to make life simple and ensure the game terminology is inclusive and non-gender-specific.

How we address the wider issue of our language generally I'm not sure.... Maybe it will just evolve over time as it already is doing. Speaking as a bloke, it can all feel a little bit threatening and like we are under attack and I suppose to a certain extent we are.... However the reality is that the world, our culture and the language that we speak (including many biological and scientific references) are all 'Male-Centric' and it does matter, because language and words underpin and reinforce attitudes, perception and how we feel about ourselves.

We can of course adopt the stance of Curryman - Who is clearly a man (A Man of Curry) - and we can stick to our guns or our over-inflated egos (reinforced by the millennia we have spent looking down on our inferior fe-male counterparts) or we can perhaps willingly engage with positive (but maybe quite painful) changes to the way we speak so that our language in general becomes more inclusive.... And I'm not talking about the introduction of a plethora of different terms to describe the myriad of self-determined gender identities, but rather the more widespread use of non gender specific language wherever practical.

For example "Good Evening Everyone" as opposed to "Good Evening Ladies & Gentlemen"

 

[Malced]

There are competitions that are gender specific, there are also competitions that are age specific, or otherwise defined... So for example "England U 21's", "Blackpool Reserves" ... I don't see a problem in giving a particular competition a definition so that it enables us to know what it is we are about to watch, that makes sense.

I do also think that it is largely beneficial to have separate competition for men and women (for obvious reasons).

I also think that terms like 'Man of the Match' and 'Down to Ten Men' can be modified to 'Player of the Match' and 'Down to Ten Players' to make life simple and ensure the game terminology is inclusive and non-gender-specific.

How we address the wider issue of our language generally I'm not sure.... Maybe it will just evolve over time as it already is doing. Speaking as a bloke, it can all feel a little bit threatening and like we are under attack and I suppose to a certain extent we are.... However the reality is that the world, our culture and the language that we speak (including many biological and scientific references) are all 'Male-Centric' and it does matter, because language and words underpin and reinforce attitudes, perception and how we feel about ourselves.

We can of course adopt the stance of Curryman - Who is clearly a man (A Man of Curry) - and we can stick to our guns or our over-inflated egos (reinforced by the millennia we have spent looking down on our inferior fe-male counterparts) or we can perhaps willingly engage with positive (but maybe quite painful) changes to the way we speak so that our language in general becomes more inclusive.... And I'm not talking about the introduction of a plethora of different terms to describe the myriad of self-determined gender identities, but rather the more widespread use of non gender specific language wherever practical.

For example "Good Evening Everyone" as opposed to "Good Evening Ladies & Gentlemen"

Another excellent post. I’m totally fine with most of that.
But as I said consistently, I’m fine with words being replaced when there would be discrimination. So good evening everyone is fine.
What I’m against is the wholesale replacement of the words men and male when the subject matter is specifically men or males. For that there’s no need. We need to discern between genders. We have a tried and tested way to do that. We don’t need new words to say something when there’s already a perfectly good word.

 

[TangerineBayern]

There really is some shite written on this thread, there are only 2 genders male or female not the 100+ that the woke and Sam Smith idiots like to think there are. Keep changing the pronouns to appease these soft arse numpties is getting out of control man up the lot of you!

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Another excellent post. I’m totally fine with most of that.
But as I said consistently, I’m fine with words being replaced when there would be discrimination. So good evening everyone is fine.
What I’m against is the wholesale replacement of the words men and male when the subject matter is specifically men or males. For that there’s no need. We need to discern between genders. We have a tried and tested way to do that. We don’t need new words to say something when there’s already a perfectly good word.

suppose the only remaining question is whether or not man, men, male are “perfectly good words” …

Man or ‘Mann’ was actually a generic term originally according to the internet and wērmann was the term for a man with wifmann being the term for woman.

So it seems they actually had it right originally… Perhaps we should just go back to how it was … I can’t see how the traditionalists (the real wērmann) could take issue with that.

It also leaves the road open to replace him and her with wēr and wif and then we could add any number of alternatives wab, wan, was, wis, win etc .. the potential is endless.

What do you think wērmann?

 

[Malced]

suppose the only remaining question is whether or not man, men, male are “perfectly good words” …

Man or ‘Mann’ was actually a generic term originally according to the internet and wērmann was the term for a man with wifmann being the term for woman.

So it seems they actually had it right originally… Perhaps we should just go back to how it was … I can’t see how the traditionalists (the real wērmann) could take issue with that.

It also leaves the road open to replace him and her with wēr and wif and then we could add any number of alternatives wab, wan, was, wis, win etc .. the potential is endless.

What do you think wērmann?

You shouldn’t let Curryman keep his name cos it would look like you’re trying to curry favour, man.

Anyways what do I think?

I think Shania Twain was years ahead of her time when she sang ‘Man? I feel like a Wermann’.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

You shouldn’t let Curryman keep his name cos it would look like you’re trying to curry favour, man.

Anyways what do I think?

I think Shania Twain was years ahead of her time when she sang ‘Man? I feel like a Wermann’.

It will also solve the issue for the thousands of Wermann trapped inside a man's body...

 

[Malced]

It will also solve the issue for the thousands of Wermann trapped inside a man's body...

I once felt like I was trapped in a woman’s body. But thankfully the coil malfunction was eventually resolved.

 

[Sooty59]

I don't think the yoof of today are too bothered as I'm always hearing someone say yeah man.

 

[JJpool]

It's the men's game mainly because women were literally banned from playing for 60 years, up to and including our lifetimes.

Whater happened was clearly wrong.

But it's the men's game too as its not fair physically to have men and women directly compete, as men generally are faster and stronger. As said, men and women aren’t physically the same and some need to accept that.

 

[JJpool]

Ho man & He male (perhaps)..

I see where you're trying to go....

 

[JJpool]

I don’t know why you’re laughing Malced.

When I were a lad there were only four types of dinosaurs.

T Rex
Brontosaurus
The one that looked like a rhinoceros with a face shield and horns and
The terr……erm…..pterrer…..errr….the flying one with the pointy head.

Then along comes Jurassic Park and it all changed.

Why can’t they just leave things alone?

Don't forget the Mickasaurus.

 

[Matesrates]

I’ve been saying “cool man” for years, am I in trouble?

 

[Bloodtangerine]

I think you can get put in prison for saying you’re a man these days.
And if you say you’re an English man you’ve got no chance.

I never knew Stewart Lee posted on here

 

[Shandypants]

Is the term "bitch with a dick" ok still?

 

[JJpool]

Is the term "bitch with a dick" ok still?

If that's your preferred title then it's upto you