Kendrick seems to have said everything I was going to say. I'll just add that the Latin word 'humanus' also contains the word 'man' in it but is used to refer to all mankind. Also I don't see anything wrong with using terms like 'chairwoman' or 'policewoman'. That's just evolution of language at work. But I would also like to point out that words do not innately come with meanings. Instead their meanings are lent to them by humans. I don't see words like 'human' or 'Mann' in German or 'fireman' as being sexist simply because they contain the word 'man'. Words get their meanings from humans, not the other way around. That means that anyone at anytime can see these words as sexist simply because they want to. However, the words come with no baggage other than that which we allow ourselves to grant them. It's all a matter of perception. As a technical side note I do not believe that the word 'men' is a suffix rather it is a lexeme of a compound word. It's sort of like the word 'basket' in the compound word 'basketball'. "After all, it apparently doesn't matter and isn't a big deal that we use "- men" or not: "- men" means both "men and women." If this is so, then "- women" must also mean "men and women" - or has the capability to refer to the universal - as well.". I tend not to agree with this (though again this could change with time) because of the way the word is used. Though in English we don't have any English gurus we can go to, like they do in Spanish for example, words still have a common meaning. Women refers to only female humans. Men refers to both just men and 'women and men' (i.e. all of humankind) due in part to it's historical origins. So: If Man -----> (Male) v (Mankind: including both males and females) If Woman -------> (Female) This could change given that languages are constantly evolving even as we speak but for right now this is the way the words are used.