Is “human-made” an appropriate, non-gendered alternative to “man-made”?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Surprisingly, this word returns very few "meaningful" results on Google (like texts, blog posts, articles, etc) using it. It seems to be a new word. Yet, the OED gives no hits.



Is this an appropriate non-gendered alternative to man-made? For instance,




Poverty is a human-made phenomenon.




Since it still contains the word "man", some might say it is not. Yet, to my understanding, human has a much broad meaning than just a male person.










share|improve this question


















  • 2




    man-made is wrong here anyway. Man-made is really for things, not states of affairs. Poverty is a phenomenon for which humans are responsible or created by humans.
    – Lambie
    Jul 26 '17 at 15:58






  • 1




    For climate change "anthropogenic" is used.
    – Martin Smith
    Jul 26 '17 at 18:24










  • I'm with @Lambie ... that this isn't a good place for "man-made" in it's generally understood meaning, let alone the gender issues. "man-made" pretty much means "manufactured" (and I don't think that needs to be turned into "humanufactured"). For your sentence I might choice "society" or "societal", or "socially created" phenomenon . These sorts of word choices are a matter of opinion to some degree, but at least those are my suggestions.
    – Tom22
    Jul 26 '17 at 23:11

















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Surprisingly, this word returns very few "meaningful" results on Google (like texts, blog posts, articles, etc) using it. It seems to be a new word. Yet, the OED gives no hits.



Is this an appropriate non-gendered alternative to man-made? For instance,




Poverty is a human-made phenomenon.




Since it still contains the word "man", some might say it is not. Yet, to my understanding, human has a much broad meaning than just a male person.










share|improve this question


















  • 2




    man-made is wrong here anyway. Man-made is really for things, not states of affairs. Poverty is a phenomenon for which humans are responsible or created by humans.
    – Lambie
    Jul 26 '17 at 15:58






  • 1




    For climate change "anthropogenic" is used.
    – Martin Smith
    Jul 26 '17 at 18:24










  • I'm with @Lambie ... that this isn't a good place for "man-made" in it's generally understood meaning, let alone the gender issues. "man-made" pretty much means "manufactured" (and I don't think that needs to be turned into "humanufactured"). For your sentence I might choice "society" or "societal", or "socially created" phenomenon . These sorts of word choices are a matter of opinion to some degree, but at least those are my suggestions.
    – Tom22
    Jul 26 '17 at 23:11













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Surprisingly, this word returns very few "meaningful" results on Google (like texts, blog posts, articles, etc) using it. It seems to be a new word. Yet, the OED gives no hits.



Is this an appropriate non-gendered alternative to man-made? For instance,




Poverty is a human-made phenomenon.




Since it still contains the word "man", some might say it is not. Yet, to my understanding, human has a much broad meaning than just a male person.










share|improve this question













Surprisingly, this word returns very few "meaningful" results on Google (like texts, blog posts, articles, etc) using it. It seems to be a new word. Yet, the OED gives no hits.



Is this an appropriate non-gendered alternative to man-made? For instance,




Poverty is a human-made phenomenon.




Since it still contains the word "man", some might say it is not. Yet, to my understanding, human has a much broad meaning than just a male person.







single-word-requests gender-neutral






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Jul 26 '17 at 15:12









luchonacho

7951620




7951620








  • 2




    man-made is wrong here anyway. Man-made is really for things, not states of affairs. Poverty is a phenomenon for which humans are responsible or created by humans.
    – Lambie
    Jul 26 '17 at 15:58






  • 1




    For climate change "anthropogenic" is used.
    – Martin Smith
    Jul 26 '17 at 18:24










  • I'm with @Lambie ... that this isn't a good place for "man-made" in it's generally understood meaning, let alone the gender issues. "man-made" pretty much means "manufactured" (and I don't think that needs to be turned into "humanufactured"). For your sentence I might choice "society" or "societal", or "socially created" phenomenon . These sorts of word choices are a matter of opinion to some degree, but at least those are my suggestions.
    – Tom22
    Jul 26 '17 at 23:11














  • 2




    man-made is wrong here anyway. Man-made is really for things, not states of affairs. Poverty is a phenomenon for which humans are responsible or created by humans.
    – Lambie
    Jul 26 '17 at 15:58






  • 1




    For climate change "anthropogenic" is used.
    – Martin Smith
    Jul 26 '17 at 18:24










  • I'm with @Lambie ... that this isn't a good place for "man-made" in it's generally understood meaning, let alone the gender issues. "man-made" pretty much means "manufactured" (and I don't think that needs to be turned into "humanufactured"). For your sentence I might choice "society" or "societal", or "socially created" phenomenon . These sorts of word choices are a matter of opinion to some degree, but at least those are my suggestions.
    – Tom22
    Jul 26 '17 at 23:11








2




2




man-made is wrong here anyway. Man-made is really for things, not states of affairs. Poverty is a phenomenon for which humans are responsible or created by humans.
– Lambie
Jul 26 '17 at 15:58




man-made is wrong here anyway. Man-made is really for things, not states of affairs. Poverty is a phenomenon for which humans are responsible or created by humans.
– Lambie
Jul 26 '17 at 15:58




1




1




For climate change "anthropogenic" is used.
– Martin Smith
Jul 26 '17 at 18:24




For climate change "anthropogenic" is used.
– Martin Smith
Jul 26 '17 at 18:24












I'm with @Lambie ... that this isn't a good place for "man-made" in it's generally understood meaning, let alone the gender issues. "man-made" pretty much means "manufactured" (and I don't think that needs to be turned into "humanufactured"). For your sentence I might choice "society" or "societal", or "socially created" phenomenon . These sorts of word choices are a matter of opinion to some degree, but at least those are my suggestions.
– Tom22
Jul 26 '17 at 23:11




I'm with @Lambie ... that this isn't a good place for "man-made" in it's generally understood meaning, let alone the gender issues. "man-made" pretty much means "manufactured" (and I don't think that needs to be turned into "humanufactured"). For your sentence I might choice "society" or "societal", or "socially created" phenomenon . These sorts of word choices are a matter of opinion to some degree, but at least those are my suggestions.
– Tom22
Jul 26 '17 at 23:11










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










I agree with Chris H but artificial is a gender-neutral way of saying man made, equating to engineered - while man-made itself is meant to be gender-neutral.



Can we drop questions of man-made, human-made or the sense of mankind, not male person?



Man once meant person and now does mean male person but why is that a reason to invent new terms? Why not resurrect the old meaning, rather as with Miss, Mrs, Ms?



Can we recognise wife isn’t opposed to husband; each is a contraction, one of wifman, one of husbandman?



Husbandman meant person who looks after (stuff) while wifman meant person who weaves.



See that person? How is that difficult?






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    This is really a matter of opinion. I'll give mine with some reasoning



    I try to be careful with gender assumptions in writing, but would still use man-made if a synonym such as artifical didn't work (as it doesn't here). This means I consider man in man-made to have the sense of mankind (the human race) not male person.



    Human-made would not present any difficulties in understanding, however dropping a neologism into the middle of a text does disrupt the flow of readin (in my opinion). You could use it if you wanted to make a real commitment to gender neutrality (though there are a very few people whi wouldn't human as it contains --man; you'd probably end up with people-made before you could please them).



    But then maybe man is correct in this case (poverty); look at the gender distribution of power and wealth now and historically.






    share|improve this answer




























      up vote
      -1
      down vote













      There is no gender neutral alternative to man-made, especially not human-made. I base this solely on George Orwell's Politics and the English Language which has 6 advanced ninja-level rules for writing really well. The 6th rule is: Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.



      Human-made is barbarous.






      share|improve this answer




















        protected by tchrist Jul 29 '17 at 20:47



        Thank you for your interest in this question.
        Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



        Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        4
        down vote



        accepted










        I agree with Chris H but artificial is a gender-neutral way of saying man made, equating to engineered - while man-made itself is meant to be gender-neutral.



        Can we drop questions of man-made, human-made or the sense of mankind, not male person?



        Man once meant person and now does mean male person but why is that a reason to invent new terms? Why not resurrect the old meaning, rather as with Miss, Mrs, Ms?



        Can we recognise wife isn’t opposed to husband; each is a contraction, one of wifman, one of husbandman?



        Husbandman meant person who looks after (stuff) while wifman meant person who weaves.



        See that person? How is that difficult?






        share|improve this answer

























          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          I agree with Chris H but artificial is a gender-neutral way of saying man made, equating to engineered - while man-made itself is meant to be gender-neutral.



          Can we drop questions of man-made, human-made or the sense of mankind, not male person?



          Man once meant person and now does mean male person but why is that a reason to invent new terms? Why not resurrect the old meaning, rather as with Miss, Mrs, Ms?



          Can we recognise wife isn’t opposed to husband; each is a contraction, one of wifman, one of husbandman?



          Husbandman meant person who looks after (stuff) while wifman meant person who weaves.



          See that person? How is that difficult?






          share|improve this answer























            up vote
            4
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            4
            down vote



            accepted






            I agree with Chris H but artificial is a gender-neutral way of saying man made, equating to engineered - while man-made itself is meant to be gender-neutral.



            Can we drop questions of man-made, human-made or the sense of mankind, not male person?



            Man once meant person and now does mean male person but why is that a reason to invent new terms? Why not resurrect the old meaning, rather as with Miss, Mrs, Ms?



            Can we recognise wife isn’t opposed to husband; each is a contraction, one of wifman, one of husbandman?



            Husbandman meant person who looks after (stuff) while wifman meant person who weaves.



            See that person? How is that difficult?






            share|improve this answer












            I agree with Chris H but artificial is a gender-neutral way of saying man made, equating to engineered - while man-made itself is meant to be gender-neutral.



            Can we drop questions of man-made, human-made or the sense of mankind, not male person?



            Man once meant person and now does mean male person but why is that a reason to invent new terms? Why not resurrect the old meaning, rather as with Miss, Mrs, Ms?



            Can we recognise wife isn’t opposed to husband; each is a contraction, one of wifman, one of husbandman?



            Husbandman meant person who looks after (stuff) while wifman meant person who weaves.



            See that person? How is that difficult?







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jul 27 '17 at 0:18









            Robbie Goodwin

            2,0701416




            2,0701416
























                up vote
                3
                down vote













                This is really a matter of opinion. I'll give mine with some reasoning



                I try to be careful with gender assumptions in writing, but would still use man-made if a synonym such as artifical didn't work (as it doesn't here). This means I consider man in man-made to have the sense of mankind (the human race) not male person.



                Human-made would not present any difficulties in understanding, however dropping a neologism into the middle of a text does disrupt the flow of readin (in my opinion). You could use it if you wanted to make a real commitment to gender neutrality (though there are a very few people whi wouldn't human as it contains --man; you'd probably end up with people-made before you could please them).



                But then maybe man is correct in this case (poverty); look at the gender distribution of power and wealth now and historically.






                share|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote













                  This is really a matter of opinion. I'll give mine with some reasoning



                  I try to be careful with gender assumptions in writing, but would still use man-made if a synonym such as artifical didn't work (as it doesn't here). This means I consider man in man-made to have the sense of mankind (the human race) not male person.



                  Human-made would not present any difficulties in understanding, however dropping a neologism into the middle of a text does disrupt the flow of readin (in my opinion). You could use it if you wanted to make a real commitment to gender neutrality (though there are a very few people whi wouldn't human as it contains --man; you'd probably end up with people-made before you could please them).



                  But then maybe man is correct in this case (poverty); look at the gender distribution of power and wealth now and historically.






                  share|improve this answer























                    up vote
                    3
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    3
                    down vote









                    This is really a matter of opinion. I'll give mine with some reasoning



                    I try to be careful with gender assumptions in writing, but would still use man-made if a synonym such as artifical didn't work (as it doesn't here). This means I consider man in man-made to have the sense of mankind (the human race) not male person.



                    Human-made would not present any difficulties in understanding, however dropping a neologism into the middle of a text does disrupt the flow of readin (in my opinion). You could use it if you wanted to make a real commitment to gender neutrality (though there are a very few people whi wouldn't human as it contains --man; you'd probably end up with people-made before you could please them).



                    But then maybe man is correct in this case (poverty); look at the gender distribution of power and wealth now and historically.






                    share|improve this answer












                    This is really a matter of opinion. I'll give mine with some reasoning



                    I try to be careful with gender assumptions in writing, but would still use man-made if a synonym such as artifical didn't work (as it doesn't here). This means I consider man in man-made to have the sense of mankind (the human race) not male person.



                    Human-made would not present any difficulties in understanding, however dropping a neologism into the middle of a text does disrupt the flow of readin (in my opinion). You could use it if you wanted to make a real commitment to gender neutrality (though there are a very few people whi wouldn't human as it contains --man; you'd probably end up with people-made before you could please them).



                    But then maybe man is correct in this case (poverty); look at the gender distribution of power and wealth now and historically.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Jul 26 '17 at 15:37









                    Chris H

                    16.8k43171




                    16.8k43171






















                        up vote
                        -1
                        down vote













                        There is no gender neutral alternative to man-made, especially not human-made. I base this solely on George Orwell's Politics and the English Language which has 6 advanced ninja-level rules for writing really well. The 6th rule is: Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.



                        Human-made is barbarous.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          -1
                          down vote













                          There is no gender neutral alternative to man-made, especially not human-made. I base this solely on George Orwell's Politics and the English Language which has 6 advanced ninja-level rules for writing really well. The 6th rule is: Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.



                          Human-made is barbarous.






                          share|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            -1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            -1
                            down vote









                            There is no gender neutral alternative to man-made, especially not human-made. I base this solely on George Orwell's Politics and the English Language which has 6 advanced ninja-level rules for writing really well. The 6th rule is: Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.



                            Human-made is barbarous.






                            share|improve this answer












                            There is no gender neutral alternative to man-made, especially not human-made. I base this solely on George Orwell's Politics and the English Language which has 6 advanced ninja-level rules for writing really well. The 6th rule is: Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.



                            Human-made is barbarous.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 31 mins ago









                            K Dog

                            26119




                            26119

















                                protected by tchrist Jul 29 '17 at 20:47



                                Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                Popular posts from this blog

                                If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                                Alcedinidae

                                Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]