When I hear man, I think person… womyn is a retarded word, conceptualized in feminist fervor. I use wereman to designate males now. It seems female is “woman” cause she is a man(meaning default human”) with a womb. Hence, wombman. Wereman is probably cause “where the fuck is that wereman?”

Reversion to wereman is better than that insane spelling of the same word womyn, get real.

2. My own field is linguistics, which overlaps psychology in many ways…although it’s a problematic field, one good thing about it is that we do realize that laypeople are *always* right! We exist to observe and document them and induce from them, not to advise them or prescribe to them or deduce onto them. Since psychology is an equally controversial field wherein hardly anyone can agree on anything, you all might take a tip from us.

3. Getting closer to where this is going: Many women (in my observation most women) prefer to be treated differently. They feel like *less of a woman* if they get treated like men, not like *more of a human*. After all, their humanity is as feminine to them as my humanity is masculine to me.
Now there do exist some women who *do* feel like *less of a human* if we treat them like women; these women need to make this clear and be patient in reminding us to make exceptions for them, which most of us are glad to do as long as they don’t get hostile (or else bilateral resentment creeps out and everything goes to hell). For example, those women who get angry at a man who holds a door for them because they feel it is degrading. While I can understand why they wouldn’t like it, (the fact that I feel it’s nitpicky and egotistical aside; after all everyone has a right to feel however they want about anything) getting angry doesn’t help in the least. How do they know I don’t do the same for men? I actually do. Never had a man get angry at me for holding the door for him because he feels I’m treating him like a woman. All men I’ve done this for, and ALMOST all women simply say, “Thank you” and walk through. (I’d even go so far as to say all psychological women simply say “thank you”– those who get angry have unresolved gender issues and as far as I see it are in sexual limbo; neither women nor wymyn nor even girls; barely humans or capitalized inclusive Men or even children).

4. I haven’t seen your psychological findings (and my limited yet thoroughly unpleasant experience in psycholinguistics suggests I probably couldn’t stand to read through them anyway. I’ve discovered that “loathing of academese is felt by me” –yuck, I have to shower after every time I read anything in that style of writing) nor have I seen any of the abundant findings to the contrary, so I realize that any argument I make, you will probably find inadequate. However, let me point out that not only is your argument counterintuitive –and I don’t mean “the Earth is flat” kind of intuitive; I mean “the sky is blue” kind of intuitive– but it goes against everything we know about natural selection. For humanity’s hundreds of formative millennia, survival depended vastly on a mated pair’s synthesis of specialization and cooperation. Without major relevant differences, neither sex would have survived to debate the issue today.
On the other hand, I may be arguing apples to your oranges. I would agree that fixed and exceptionless gender roles are worthless and oppressive to both sexes; as a student of linguistics I understand the need to be descriptive and not prescriptive. Whenever I see one sex bitter against the other, I try to put sex into perspective by emphasizing that both sexes are human and share much more in common than we often feel we do. I believe we can boil down the differences between the sexes to three core facts which are basically manifestations of the same thing:
a) Males have external sexual organs and females have internal sexual organs.
b) Males do not get pregnant, females do.
c) Females monopolize the uterus hence reproduction, males must gain access through favor (or fraud or force, but those are not ideal).
Superimpose this key difference onto an androgynous human template, and voila! You have man and woman. Two sides of the same coin. Is it valid to argue that they are essentially similar? Yes, they are the same coin. Is it valid to argue that they are essentially different? Yes, they are different sides.
To exemplify anecdotally: I am in love with a most remarkable woman. She is highly intellectual, she plays rugby so well that when the women don’t show up to practice the men are glad to have her on their team, and she knows tae kwon do to the point that I’m sure she could beat me up despite my being bigger and physically stronger. She is an example of broken gender roles if there ever was one. Nevertheless, she retains a quintessential femininity about her that defines every aspect of her being, and in no way should be trivialized to meet some misguided egalitarian ideal. Her femininity is something to celebrate, not something to shun, and her choice to do as she wishes with it augments and does not diminish it. If a woman freely chooses to stay at home and sew and clean all day, that will also augment her femininity. It is different than my love’s choice of femininity, nonetheless it is femininity freely expressed.
Whether or not erroneously, many will construe your assertions as an attempt to impose a homogenized ideal on humanity, removing femininity and masculinity as quintessential defining attributes; to quote Lewis, “Always winter and never Christmas!” Or Yule if religion offends you; the point remains the same.

5. This addresses above posts more than yours, but as far as pressuring women to enter the workforce, and debating how many dollars they earn to the man’s dollar, etc. Well, let’s just imagine that the feminists’ dream comes true: every woman is working and earning the same amount as a man doing the same work. This woman is NOT earning a dollar on the dollar; both she and her male counterpart are reduced to earning 50 cents on the dollar: since the workforce has doubled, labor has inflated by 100% hence its value has been cut in half. Between the two of them (man and woman) they are now working twice as much as before –say 80 hours per couple instead of 40 when just the man worked– but their combined income has the same purchasing power that a man’s single income used to have. Notice how nobody tells women to work 20 hours per week, so that their man can work 20 hours per week, then they can make the same amount as before (in real purchasing power) and both have 20 extra hours to spend as they wish…with each other, maybe with the kids? No, the advice is to go out and work 40 hours so you can afford to hire someone else to watch your kids grow up equally distant from mother and father.
At the end of it all the only difference is less time, a lower rate of pay, a larger labor pool to tax, and a family of strangers. Neither the woman’s nor the man’s nor the wereman’s nor the Man’s nor the children’s nor the human’s best interests are being served here. I believe the interests being served here, however unwittingly, are the insidious interests of a power-hungry financial elite…but that’s another can of worms and I’ll let you open it for yourself if you want to.

lulz.