TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> That's what the whole issue of inclusive language is about: whether or
> not -man (as in chairman) and the "generic" pronoun he/him/his refer to
> a "person" or to a "man."
> Proponents of inclusive language believe the terms are sexist, exlude
> women, and should be changed to be inclusive. Opponents believe the
> terms are inclusive already and no changes are needed.
> You clearly fall into the latter group, and you are entitled to your
> opinion, but calling inclusive language "silliness" isn't really a
> constructive contribution to the discussion.
Read more carefully. I pointed out that -man means -person, not -male,
and is therefore already inclusive. It was specifically the habit of
creating ugly neologisms in order to avoid an ending that already means
what the neologism-creators want that I called silly.