>On the other hand, what I understand from the criticism of the term is that it hurts some people to hear it used.
It has a negative definition. It was chosen to be a gendered word, a tongue in cheek attack on the prevalence of accidentally gendered words like mankind and manslayer. When we are moving away from words that use the root word man to avoid accidental gendering, why would a new word be created that is gendered if it is not an attack on that gender?
It has a negative definition. It was chosen to be a gendered word, a tongue in cheek attack on the prevalence of accidentally gendered words like mankind and manslayer. When we are moving away from words that use the root word man to avoid accidental gendering, why would a new word be created that is gendered if it is not an attack on that gender?