The following article, Purdue Online Writing Lab Bans Use of the Word "Man" was recently brought to my attention. Seeing the title of this article immediately worried me as I know the Purdue OWL to be one of, if not the top, writing style guide sites in use today. So, in order to evaluate the true value of the Purdue OWL site I made a point of looking further into the issue. This lead me to a huge number of articles protesting, or simply debating the Purdue OWL's recent language guidelines considering the word "man."

The Purdue OWL receives a huge amount of traffic and is used as the premier style guide for many academics, but has received quite a bit of backlash for this set of guidelines. They have received this backlash based on the idea that it promotes a "liberal" or "democrat" agenda.

I would like to clearly explain why this set of guidelines has absolutely nothing to do with a political agenda, and everything to do with accuracy and efficiency. To do this, let's first start off by talking about the guideline in question.

The Purdue OWL under the "Using Appropriate Language" section under the subheading of "Gender Biased Language" discusses the appropriate use of the term "man." Nowhere in this or in any section of the Purdue OWL website is the word "man" banned as the previously mentioned, and many other articles, attempt to suggest. The Purdue OWL does however show the correct and incorrect uses of the term "man."

Here are the Purdue OWL's suggestions for avoiding gender-biased language:

Generic Use

• Original: mankind
• Alternatives: humanity, people, human beings

• Original: man's achievements
• Alternative: human achievements

• Original: man-made
• Alternatives: synthetic, manufactured, machine-made

• Original: the common man
• Alternatives: the average person, ordinary people

• Original: man the stockroom
• Alternative: staff the stockroom

• Original: nine man-hours
• Alternative: nine staff-hours

Occupations

• Original: chairman
• Alternatives: coordinator (of a committee or department), moderator (of a meeting), presiding officer, head, chair

• Original: businessman
• Alternatives: business executive, business person

• Original: fireman
• Alternative: firefighter

• Original: mailman
• Alternative: mail carrier

• Original: steward and stewardess
• Alternative: flight attendant

• Original: policeman and policewoman
• Alternative: police officer

• Original: congressman
• Alternative: congressional representative

• Original: male nurse
• Alternative: nurse

• Original: woman doctor
• Alternative: doctor

The full and exact guideline in question can be seen here: Gender Biased Language Guidelines.

The title of the first article I mentioned alone shows the huge misconception of the Purdue OWL's guideline's actual content and purpose. As you can see the word "ban" is never used for the word "man," and the suggestions for replacing the terms containing the word "man" apply only in instances in which it is being used to refer to more than just the male gender.

Especially in describing occupations using gendered terms is unnecessary and outdated. Without applying unnecessary political views to an academic argument it is important to understand that using the term "firefighter" is simply more accurate than saying "fireman" or "fire-woman." Firemen were originally called firemen because there were no fire-women. The fact of the matter is that terms like firefighter, flight attendant, and humanity are more accurate and efficient than their gendered alternatives.

Accuracy and efficiency are the basis of best practices in writing, which is why the Purdue OWL chose to include these guidelines. They are in no way a political statement.

Gendered terms are something that we have all grown up hearing and using, but that does not make them correct. It is important for both accuracy and efficiency that we make adjustments to old habits and use accurate language not only in our writing as the Purdue OWL is suggesting, but in our everyday life.

Anyone trying to turn this set of guidelines into a political statement and basis for devaluing an extremely reputable and useful academic site is seriously mistaken.