>>>I'm just curious to know why putting a gender on somethings bother some people.
>
>>When it comes to stuff like 'Chairman' or 'postman', as far as I'm concerned that's the name of the job, and it's a lot of yelling over nothing. But sometimes it might be nice to have a gender neutral word. For example:
>
>>"When someone wants to cross the road, he should look both ways." We don't really mean 'he'. Of course, we don't really mean 'she' either. In that case, a gender neutral word might be nice so we didn't have to convolute it by saying 'he/she' or 'the person'. We have 'one', but that always sounds a little pompous somehow.
>
>So does it bother you if an anthropologist say "... MAN KIND arrived 15000 years ago.."? Should we do away with the phrase like "man kind" and use "Human kind" from now on?

I doubt I could care less about it. There are words and connotations that are so ingrained that to conceptualise them in terms of gender seems meaningless. "Man kind" to me is the same as "human kind", only simpler to say and type. Or perhaps we can't even use the word "Human" anymore. Maybe we have to go with "Huperson" now. It just starts to get really stupid as far as I'm concerned. And for what? To appease a few unbelievable thin skinned persons with too much time on their hands?