I think that might make a substantial difference.

My point was that etymology (though interesting) is largely irrelevant to whether something is exclusionary or not. And it's a bit of a non-sequitor to point to the use of a word from a heavily sexist era as some sort of argument against it being sexist.

Words have a social affect beyond the pure literal meaning of them. And really, it's not hard to not use exclusionary language.

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Are you saying that people continue to use those words (the second of which I don't recognize) in the same manner as they were used before, and that at the time those words were being used in a way that was not harmful?

I don't think that I am aware of that any common use of that word that matches those criteria, but I may be mistaken (I certainly have not thought this through).

I'd like to note that I wasn't necessarily claiming that using the word 'man' now for a certain purpose is not imperfect, just trying to note a difference between the compared circumstances. (This may have been influenced by a position, and perhaps the method of discussion I am using might be counterproductive, with all its qualifiers and fallbacks, but uh, hm.) Now I am mostly trying to understand what you mean by this most recent message.

When you are talking about using a word from a heavily sexist era, are you talking about using 'man' from 'mann'? Also, are you saying that the use of the word 'mann' at that time was sexist?

If that is not what you meant, I apologize, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.

Finally, I agree that connotation and other properties of words can be harmful when the denotation would not be.

Which very well may be a sufficient reason to avoid the use of the word 'man' to mean a human of any gender.

(though, due to ignorance, _successfully_ avoiding all use of exclusionary language might be difficult? Though of course, avoiding any single instance of exclusionary language likely would not be hard.)

I note that my way of approaching these sorts of things might be harmful, with all the extra qualifiers everywhere, and a few other things like that. However, I didn't really feel comfortable not responding at all, because I felt accused of saying something that I felt I had not said, and which I did not understand how it might follow from what I had said. I hope that I have not engaged in moving any goalposts, or similar harmful rhetorical-ish stuff. However, I feel I might have done so (though I am not sure exactly where), so I apologize if I have.

No need to apologise, by the way, I didn't feel like words were put in my mouth by what you said. I just didn't see the arguments you put forward as meaning it's okay to use certain language - the same arguments work for slurs.

the second of which I don't recognize

It's a racial slur against Spanish folks in British English. Doesn't have the same impact as the other word, but it's still a slur.

Also, are you saying that the use of the word 'mann' at that time was sexist?

I am saying that at the time, women were second-class citizens and largely considered to be in the social background. There aren't a lot of women in the history books, for example. Saying that 'mann' meant all humans in an era when women weren't considered as equals doesn't give the word a lot of credit as a gender-neutral word.

It's a bit like how for a long time 'the UK' and 'England' were interchangeable. The UK had a couple of other countries in it that weren't England, but people frequently referred to the group of them as 'England'.

though, due to ignorance, _successfully_ avoiding all use of exclusionary language might be difficult

Difficult sure, but at the same time, still something to strive for. 'man' and 'mankind' are, at this point, purely rhetorical devices, both of which have plenty of alternatives.

Nobody said that. The etymology was only brought up to show that 'man' being gender neutral is not a neologism that can be easily argued against.

I don't know why you brought up slurs at all. Using a term that focuses on a gender or race does not imply insulting anyone.

If you enunciate clearly you can probably use "negro" without upsetting anyone, and only getting odd looks for such an out-of-fashion term. Mentioning race is not where the social baggage is.

Both sexist terms and racial slurs are exclusionary language, which is the point I was getting at. I never said that people were being insulted by man/mankind.

It is really the other way around, since "man" as meaning both genders is the more original meaning of the word. So there is nothing sexist about "mankind". However it was arguable sexist to use "a man" to mean "a male" rather than "a human".