4 ms·

Can you expand on that?

• aristofun 3y ago
  why use (abuse) the word "person" then?
  • beej71 3y ago
    Because if you say the "man" it implies that women fighters would not have the same advantage, when clearly they would. As since men are people, I'd argue it's not an abuse of language.
    • aristofun 3y ago
      again — in those times women did not fight to get advantage in the first place why not use this to be more precise in the language?
      • throwbadubadu 3y ago
        Majority, but not all were men? But why care about that at all and consider it the most striking thing about the article? Even rethinking it 3 times I'm not sure what you find preciser in this, or how it is not completely irrelevant?
      • beej71 3y ago
        You sound pretty sure that women would never be among the attackers, but that seems like a risky bet to me. There are historical accounts of Viking attackers who were women, for example.