Am I re­ally a woman-man?

The Herald - - OPINION -

I NO longer wish to be de­scribed as a man. From now on I’m a mxn.

No, this is not a typo. It’s a re­ac­tion state­ment. It’s a re­sponse to the news this week that Dr Clara Brad­bury-rance, fel­low at King’s Col­lege Lon­don, be­lieves the word “woman” to be un­fair.

She says the spell­ing of the word “stems from a long­stand­ing ob­jec­tion to the word woman as it comes from man, and the lin­guis­tic roots of the word mean that it re­ally does come from the word man”.

Well, here’s the thing, if the “wo” part sug­gests “of man” the re­al­ity is that I and ev­ery other man come from woman. Does this mean men should re­ally be called woman-man?

Yes, I know this is get­ting a bit com­pli­cated. But when the likes of Dr Brad­bury-rance claim her new word is also sup­posed to be in­clu­sive of trans women, and some non-bi­nary peo­ple, doesn’t that com­pli­cate the is­sue even more?

Here’s the thing; call me any­thing you like. Use ma­tri­ar­chal lan­guage if you wish.

Just get the spell­ing right.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.