A demand is being made that the public must change it's vocabulary on the basis that the term manned spacecraft is outdated and sexist. It's argued that because spacecraft can be crewed by women, that the word manned is "no longer accurate" and "obsolete". The Atlantic's article, written by Marina Koren, asserts that "Language matters, and this particular vernacular reinforces the notion, once held to be true, that space exploration is for men only".
It would be simple enough for me to swap the word manned for crewed and be done with it. Doing so would certainly ease the social friction generated by me opposing such an "obvious and simple request" (as I have been told by someone before). Though we likely disagree on many topics, Marina Koren and I can certainly agree on one thing: language matters. I believe it matters a great deal which is why my ethics dictate that I refuse to comply with the demand, because I believe the premise of the argument being made for why the term manned should be avoided is completely false.
I say that a "demand" is being made, rather than a request or suggestion, because to the insinuations which surround it. The article asserts that the word manned is gender-specific to males, and that such a term would represent the notion that whatever is being manned is "only for men". Under these assertions: anyone who doesn't stop saying the adjective manned after knowing these connotations could justifiably be labeled a misogynist. Anyone who continued to use the term would be making a statement that affirms the "only for men" notion. That's why it's more than a mere suggestion; it's "change your language, or be sexist".
I reject those assertions as they're not based in fact. The adjective manned has several definitions; none of which specify a male biological sex or masculine gender identity. Even the word man itself is gender-neutral, and when used outside of an explicit gendered statement, it refers to Humanity; the homo-sapien species which we are all a part of. The phrase isn't "[male pronoun] the guns" - which makes no linguistic sense - it's "man the guns"; it's syntactically clear that the word man is being used as a verb, not a noun. It's a sentence which calls for the guns to "be manned", not to "be man". These syntactic meaning changes are common throughout the English language, but it's rare that native speakers consciously notice them. Because the word man can refer to either gender, sex, or our species; it tends to stand out a bit more.
Perhaps there's been some historical use, specifically regarding space travel, where the term was used incorrectly or as a pun in a derogatory manor to say that "space exploration is only for men". Those instances do not change the meaning, definition, or origin of the word, nor the intentions of the average speaker when they say it.
Words have power, but only the power we give them. This article and those like it are shifting the definitions of these words in the public consciousness which affects the power they have. The statements made in this article are assigning manufactured meanings to words; meanings which convey that a systemic misogynistic injustice is taking place, when it isn't. Such perversions of language pave the way for anyone who correctly uses these words to be wrongly accused of harboring sexist, misogynistic, and other such views or beliefs.
There's a phrase I rather like, and I feel it's appropriate to this issue: "It's a you-problem". If someone takes offense by attributing an unintended meaning and connotation to an innocent phrase: it's their fault for doing so, not the person speaking with pure intentions. This is true even more so when assigning origins and definitions that are factually incorrect in order to justify your feelings. Corrupting the meanings of words like this belittles real sexism and misogyny. It makes light of the malicious and bigoted statements that women are so often subjected to. It generates a false perception of prejudice where there's none, and attributes beliefs to those who truly don't hold them.
As agreed on earlier; language is important. Intent and definitions matter. You don't get to twist them both to mean whatever you'd like to fit your biased, political, identity-driven worldview. To pervert and twist language in such a fashion isn't just a linguistically pedantic offense; it's dangerous, and it's dangerous on both a societal and a personal level. The only thing more disheartening than seeing someone being attacked merely for their beliefs, is seeing someone attacked for beliefs that they don't even hold. Peoples perceptions of others beliefs are heavily informed by language.
This will likely fall on deaf ears but I must urge those who will listen: take responsibility for your words. Choose them as carefully as you can. The pen can be mightier than the sword, and that might must be wielded with respect. There's an obligation to the truth and to those who are influenced by your words. That obligation is being ignored far too often in the media. Ignoring that obligation is an abuse of power. That abuse harms everything, including the things you claim to stand for.
A small act repeated enough can have a significant influence. This single article has negligible effect. There have been many like it before and there will be many like it after. But together, shaping what people think and how they perceive others, these things make a difference... and it isn't as innocent or harmless as invalidating a few dictionaries.
--- 2019 Alaestor Weissman
