I think it’s important to note that fact now because it’s still not “historical” (as in “over”) in terms of the debate. Like I said, that the whole debate largely started due to political reasons (I won’t call them “artificial,” because politics has always played a part in shaping language) still has dramatic influence on the debate and even continues to influence which words are used.

Case in point: go to a rural, largely conservative Evangelical community in the Midwest, and you’ll find that the vast majority still use “man” and other masculine forms generically. Those who are aware of the debate in those communities use it intentionally as a way of showing their disdain towards those who are “changing” it. But in Los Angeles (or in scholarly writing), it doesn’t work that way, being so very nearly the opposite that it could negatively influence one’s social or professional status.

The fact is that we can’t ignore the origins of the shift, because a large percentage of those on the ground don’t ignore it. I’ve heard too people insist on “man” or other masculine forms with, “you can be politically correct all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that it includes women too,” to think that ignoring the political origins of the debate is in any way productive. And like I said, I don’t know if this debate will ever cease to be a debate; both sides are simply too entrenched.

I think you’re right that the shift away from “man” was, at first, in part the artificial result of a politically motivated group with an agenda that including stirring up resentment. But I’m not sure how important, or even relevant, it is to note that historical fact now. And I think, at least for translation purposes, that it’s more important to recognize the language as it is, whether one likes it or not.

(The same movement away from “man” created Hebrew liturgy in this country that replaced avot with avot v’imahot. I have always argued against that change — in vain — on the linguistic grounds that avot is already inclusive. But the politics beat the science in this case.)

I do find it mildly amusing that this concern with gendered language is a non-issue in virtually every other language in the world; I know my Hispanic friends find the whole thing a bit silly.

Mark, surely car manufacturers deliberately target men rather than women for their advertising, at least for some models. I haven’t seen the new Prius ad (I guess it is North American only) but does it by any chance show a male driver and emphasise, if only subtly, the car’s masculine characteristics? I guess the advertising agency knew exactly what they were doing in choosing the word “man”, and it wasn’t to be gender generic.

But I don’t think anyone would actually argue that “man” never includes women in modern usage. We argue (those of us who do, at least) that such a usage is in decline, and that it can be confusing (which Joel seems to agree with by his discussion of “dialects”).

I think there are probably dialects in which “man” is never inclusive. Most speakers, though, can do just fine in several dialects, so I would venture to guess that there are no speakers for whom “man” cannot ever include women. (It’s a little difficult to judge accurately because in many circles speakers are condemned for thinking that “man” can include women, so they won’t admit it.)

But really, how speakers use English is answer through field work, not sitting at home and guessing/hoping/demanding/etc. (And by “field work” I don’t mean just a Google search or simple observation.)