Language is already gender-neutral

The argument

Throughout the history of English, the word "man" and words containing it ("mankind," "manpower") were used to refer to all human beings regardless of gender. Dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary, which trace the development of words throughout history, acknowledge that "man" means "human" or "person," not just "male individual." Since words like "mankind" have already been gender-neutral for centuries, they do not perpetuate any gendered stereotypes or gender roles. They simply refer to human individuals. No change is necessary to get rid of the androcentric language because it is not inherently male-oriented.

Premises

Counter-arguments

From an etymological perspective, this viewpoint is false. "Man" has never been exclusively gender-neutral in English. While the Oxford English Dictionary does include meanings of "man" that are gender-neutral, some of which now obsolete, it also shows that this same word has referred to male persons from the beginning, too. Even in Proto-Indo-European, the ancient ancestor that gave English most of its words, the word for "man" refers mainly to a male person. Words like "mankind" have thus never been completely gender-neutral, rendering this argument invalid.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The historical claim reports only half the record. As the counter-argument notes, the same word has denoted male persons from the earliest English onward, so "man" has carried both senses at once rather than being neutral. [Rejecting P2] The Oxford English Dictionary lists the generic sense alongside the male one and marks parts of it obsolete. Citing one entry as "the" meaning treats a historical dictionary as an arbiter of present usage, which is not what it records. [Rejecting P3] Even granting the etymology, the question at issue is how such words are heard and used now, not what they meant centuries ago — and the argument offers nothing on current usage.