Justin Trudeau corrects audience member

Justin Trudeau interrupted a female audience member to correct her for saying “mankind.” He thinks “peoplekind” is more inclusive.


Justin Trudeau believes it’s time to move on from the term “mankind”. During a town hall event last week, the Canadian Prime Minister interrupted a young woman in the audience, telling her not to use the term “mankind” and instead say “peoplekind.”

The woman was advocating for expanded rights for church groups in Canada when the exchange took place:

“We came here today to ask you to also look into the policies that religious charitable organizations have in our legislation so that it can also be changed because maternal love is the love that’s going to change the future of mankind…”

Trudeau then interrupts: “We like to say peoplekind, not necessarily mankind because it’s more inclusive.”

You can watch the full video here:

Reactions

The incident has sparked a renewed debate over the merits of the term “mankind.”

Those who disapprove of the term say it’s just one of many examples of our language favoring the male gender at the expense of the female. As such, they argue we should throw out dated, male-centric terms and instead use gender-inclusive options. “Mankind” is a perfect example of something that could easily be replaced without causing any confusion, they point out.

However, it wasn’t immediately clear why Trudeau advocated for “peoplekind” over “humankind”, which some insist makes more sense (assuming the goal is gender-neutral language).

Internet Disapproves

Although the crowd at the town hall cheered Trudeau’s comment, the reception beyond those walls has not been nearly as positive. News of the incident spread swiftly over Twitter, eliciting a wave of responses – many of them mocking the prime minister and accusing him of taking political correctness a step too far.

Others sarcastically pointed out that following this type of logic can quickly lead to absurdity:

What Do Women Think?

All jokes aside, the incident seems to have really struck a nerve with people — especially those weary of political correctness. But it also taps into the larger issue of how language is used in our society, and what impact our words have on others. What if women really are sick of our vernacular being male-centric?

To get to the heart of the gendered-language debate, we must ask two questions:

  1. Do women feel slighted or excluded when they hear terms such as “mankind”?
  2. Would shifting away from gender-specific words have a tangible positive effect?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then maybe we should give Trudeau’s “peoplekind” petition some serious consideration.

On the other hand, if adopting gender-inclusive language turns out to be a meaningless gesture that only succeeds in promoting further division within society, then perhaps it would be best avoided.

Thoughts?

 

45 comments

  1. Theresa says:

    Actually I liked be called a woman. I think being called a wopeople would be weird.
    I also like the term mankind. It clarifies all men and all women as a diversified yet combined entity or collective.
    Besides, there are way to many changes in our language that I am forgetting how to speak with intelligence.
    Just like that young lady. Please stop trying to correct me for something I never did wrong.

  2. John Owens says:

    Trudeau is a dip, anyway. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how such vacuous people can survive puberty, much less obtain positions of authority, even if HANDED the position by others, who manipulate the public and place them there. It is patently ridiculous to try to make every expression of a language “inclusive”. The language is the way it is for a reason and that reason is seldom sinister. Trudeau is sinister, to push the globalist agenda in a fairly free country. He is the enemy of the citizens of Canada and the United States.

    If women feel slighted when we say, “mankind,” it is only because they have been told to feel slight by that, so they are being manipulated by the feminists, whose motives are no more nor compassionate than the chauvinists they claim to abhor. There will be NO tangible positive effect in changing our language to appease or accommodate people who always find something about which to complain, AND THERE IS A NOISY CONTINGENT WHO DOES NOTHING ELSE for the world, but complain.

    1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

      coming from a guy who buys into the BS that Obama wasnt born in Hawaii Ill just shake my head and chuckle at your posts Owens while thinking of how Mama would pronounce Owen in throw Mama from the train.

      Not to mention You could say that entire statement of yours like looking in a mirror and be directing all that tripe of yours to an audience that cares.

      1. John Owens says:

        You’re sound like a piece of excrement. Shut up.

        1. John Owens says:

          typo there. “YOU sound like…”

          1. JOHN MAHER says:

            YOU SOUND LIKE, DID U JOHN BOOGER BUTTERFLY OWINS ever HEAR EXCREMENT SPEAK, YES REPLIES the BUTTERFLY OWINS my DADDY DOTAR ORANGUtRUMP !!!

        2. JOHN MAHER says:

          DEAR BOOGER BUTTERFLY OWINS DO NOT CONFUSE ME with YOUR DADDY, I AM MAN NOT WO to MAN like DOGGIE BAG DOTAR ORANGUtRUNP

      2. John Owens says:

        Nothing you said has anything to do with anything I said. Jerk.

    2. JOHN MAHER says:

      HEY JOHN BOOGER BUTTERFLY OWINS, SOUNDS LIKE YOU JUST DESCRIBED YOURSELF, YOU SOUND MORE LIKE ROY date the babies MOORE and YOUR DADDY — DOTAR ORANGUtRUMP, MOORE and MOORE EVERYTIME YOU BLOG, VILLAGE IDIOT………………………

  3. Jess Martin says:

    Try out the word Humanity

    1. Paul Hoogeveen says:

      Or perhaps “humankind.”

      1. John Owens says:

        both of those still contain the word “man”

      2. Lee Boutell says:

        I agree, the word “humankind” is best if one wishes to avoid offending many peoples’ sensibilities, especially a large number of women. He wasn’t “mansplaining”, in a way he was “womansplaining”:

  4. Mark Hannon says:

    Is the word “mankind” used so frequently and for anything that’s really important that another can’t be substituted? It’s 2018 and big people can take a little change. We add new words to the dictionary every year. And women do make up a substantial part of all people.

    1. John Owens says:

      It’s still stupid. It is a language. It is not a company or church or government. What if the romance languages and Greek try to remove gender from their languages? They will not even be able to speak, because every noun and adjective has a gender. A pencil is masculine, a pen is feminine. If you speak of children, you use the word for “sons” or “little boys” and it MEANS “sons and daughters” or “little children”. People who have so little about which to worry they decide to worry about this stupid gender-neutral language stuff need some real work to do.

  5. James says:

    Who cares . Sounds like people have too much time onotheir hands. I mean, isn’t their country in freefall and being over team with invaders from other countries? If we are to Listen to wisdom ;aren’t the people that we hear and learn from suppose to be wise? Trudeau is anything but!

    1. Wen says:

      Best do your homework before you speak James. Canada has a welcoming multi cultural society. I don’t believe immigrants are seen as “invaders” but, rather welcome additions to the country. In terms of freefall, I’m unsure of what that means. On the eve of yet another potential government shutdown here, I’d be careful of judging other countries as being in freefall. If you’re interested, you could compare literacy rates, infant mortality, life spans, educational levels……need I go on? Bravo Monsieur Trudeau! Salut!

      1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

        Truth every Canadian Ive talked to feels more or less pity for we U.S. citizens that are stuck with Trump and confusion and disgust for those who support him.

      2. John Owens says:

        Canada is fast becoming a welfare state, rushing headlong into totalitarian socialism. Multiculturalism is wonderful when it doesn’t have to be artificially created and sustained, but when it does, it neither helpful nor productive.

        1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

          we get it owen you think its the 1950s the red scare is real and any thing remotely based on people caring about people and helping them is evil communism.

          Let me guess you think the wiping out of the people already living in the americas was noble, that the age of imperialism was grand, and napalming vast swaths of veitnam to defeat communism was righteous.

          Guess what the U.S. has always been multicultural. The human species has always been multi cultural. Those cultures that try to isolate are always doomed to become inbred abominations. There has been a community of mormon extremist that lived so isolated they are now suffering high amounts of birth defects due to everyone being too closely related.

          But we get it you think change is always bad.

          1. John Owens says:

            Change is only bad when it brings unforeseen consequences, WHICH IT ALWAYS DOES, YOU KNOW-IT-ALL! And stop assuming you know so much. I assure you that you are very mistaken. You may learn, eventually, but you seem to have a lot that needs to be unlearned, because your head is full of false information.

            Oh, and I was actually born in the 1950s and now is nothing at all like then. I have witnessed more change than you can probably conceive, and 3/4 of it has been negative, so don’t even try to preach to me about your dumb-ass utopian socialist new world order BS.

    2. Lee Boutell says:

      James, A true leader is supposed to provide moral leadership as well as political. Trudeau seems to sincerely care about people’s sensibilities, which is a strong characteristic of the Canadian people in general, so at least their leader reflects the positive values of the people. When you understand the social and political realities that represent a true freefall you need look no farther than our own country the USA.

      1. Wen says:

        Well said Lee.

  6. Alicia says:

    He seriously is over-compensating. Did he really have to interrupt her for that correction? Couldn’t he just have waited to give his “correction” during his answer?

    And what’s wrong with “humankind”? Or is that excluding a large group of Earthlings who aren’t human? But then, so does “peoplekind”. I just can’t believe people waste their time on this PC crap.

    1. John Owens says:

      I’m with you on this one, Alicia.

  7. Christopher says:

    I prefer ‘human kind’ if you want to be species centric…

    But even that is far too limiting, his use of “personkind” recognizes all transnational corporations, as according to North American laws, legally CORPORATIONS are PEOPLE.

    I encourage everyone to embrace the viewpoint of All Living Beings, as all animals are our brothers, all plants are our sisters, and in a very real scientific objective sense, all life on planet Earth is one Family.

    ‘Personhood’ raises the question,
    ‘Does a Corporation have a Soul ?’

    Undoubtedly, some corporations do good helpful things, while other do harmful evil things.

    Jesus taught us to help the wounded,
    Buddha taught us to nurse and heal the sick. Native religions teach us to love the forests and rivers, and protect the lakes and grasslands.

    Pray for corporations that poison and kill humans for money, and pray for corporations that destroy nature in search of profits.

    If collections of humans become ‘one soul’ or a spiritual movement, it falls upon each of use to fullfill our Duty, or Joy of LOVE, to guide the organizations we belong to in the ways of Loving Kindness.

    When we work, we can influence a culture of love. Play music that is healing and encouraging, that uplifts the Spirit and brightens everyone’s mood.

    As decision makers, we will be pressured to take the short cuts, make a quick buck, to disregard the rights of the powerless and poor.

    But we know our Soul is a brighter thsn the Sun, our goodness removes the darkness when we stand firm and do the right thing.

    And doing the right thing saves our companies souls in the long run. Protect the environment. Defend the weak and poor. Recycle and reduce waste. Ensure good healthcare and benefits for our workers and their families. As children depend on good parents, the parents depend on good companies that PROVIDE.

    Pray always for joy and peace,
    and good health for all living things.

    1. JPrime says:

      Corporations are only legally people because of a serious loophole that was never actually closed in capital law. No commercial organization can have a soul. But let’s say they were people in the human sense; would we then have to take steps against them to prevent the wanton destruction of the planet and indeed other people? How would you deal with a mass-murderer? How about a corporation that commits complete genocide by altering the DNA of plants so that only ONE genome remains, and then tries to TRADEMARK it? The faster we can get back to taking care of the planet for fiture generations instead of chasing the Almighty Dollar, the better off each of us will be.
      As for the article, call us what you will, regardless. By any other name, we are family.

  8. John Owens says:

    Let’s replace the phoneme “man” with the word “people” in every place it occurs. Manual labor becomes peoplual labor. Manage becomes peoplage. Sure, I know. Sounds stupid, but HEY, it’s more INCLUSIVE. Trudeau HAS to be playing a part in testing the Canadian people to see how damned stupid they really can be led into becoming. Obviously some PEOPLE have no limit to how stupid they will applaud and become. Some are even on this page.

    1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

      Coming from a guy that thinks change is bad, and Obama is not a U.S. citizen trying to judge others intellect well lets just say you are not fit to say anything about well anyone.

      Is this guys word choice the best eh not really but trying to change how people use words isnt some crime.

      I personally prefer to call people hairless round eared talking monkeys that tends to be a better descriptor then any word relating to the most advanced life form on this world.

      1. John Owens says:

        You should really take your head out of your butt. Just a suggestion. You don’t know squat.

  9. rabbi jim says:

    Greetings all! I favor the term ‘Peoplekind’ to ‘Mankind’, also. Generic is good for society. It is all-inclusive. Shalom and have a wonderful day!

  10. Colleen M Kelly says:

    I prefer humankind. And, as a “female”, I don’t mind the word “man” or “male” being a root word. We have bigger fish to fry!

  11. Brian Haskell says:

    Does this mean that Gander, Newfoundland will have to be renamed Geesetown?

  12. Dreamsinger says:

    This is a great example of how political correctness breeds racism, xenophobia, ignorance and suffering. Sure, “peoplekind” is a kindler, gentler term that caters to women’s need to feel relevant in “a man’s world”, and that’s fine.

    But it’s a bit hypocritical to claim women are a minority, when they outnumber men in the general world population (107 women for every 100 men). It’s also ridiculous for women to claim they’re the weaker sex, when they can endure the pain of childbirth (medically clocked at “26 bones broken simultaneously”) while passing a watermelon-sized baby through an pelvic opening the size of a grapefruit.

    This isn’t a “man’s world”, ladies. And it sure as hell ain’t yours, either. This is Telly Savalas’ world, baby… we all just rent space here.

    The only people who can make you relevant, or irrelevant, is yourselves.
    Demand respect from yourselves before demanding respect from men. Then you’ll understand the difference between respect and Rose McGowan’s misandry.

    No sympathy here. While I do appreciate Trudeau’s efforts to accomodate, I do believe he was mocking political correctness in a tactful way. Too bad people on both sides are blinded by the blood in their eyes to appreciate the lampooning of a Canadian idiot.

    1. bigrik1 says:

      Well said

  13. Lee says:

    God created Man as a species, both male and female genders. This politician apparently believes that the male is Man and the female is Woman. He should perhaps spend a little time in the Genesis before coming up with dumb political ideas. Mankind includes both genders.

    1. junk parts says:

      no A-hole, WO is just female. Man is just male.

  14. Andrew says:

    It was a joke.

  15. CW says:

    Justin Trudeau Is the joke. How he has no been voted out or just removed from office is a joke on all Canadians. Why the left in Canada has no realized he is not good for them is a joke. Canada is turning into a joke. Once Nafta is removed maybe Canadians will figure it out as their economy base on deceit crumble.

  16. Ida says:

    The lady from the audience wanted to talk about charitable religious organizations and maternal love.
    Trudeau successfully distracted the crowd to talk about a word

    This is a terribly unfortunate example of a forum for discussion.

  17. Captain Jack says:

    Oh, here we go again! What’s wrong with the word “mankind”? Let me tell you the ways…

    It’s at the heart of one of the greatest semantic debates of our time. Some say the word is gender-neutral and means “all humanity.” To others, “mankind” sounds gender specific and means “a bunch of men without women.” They prefer “humanity” or “humankind.” So who is correct?

    Where Does “Mankind” Come From? In modern English, we use the word “man” to mean “a male person.” Earlier in the development of our language, “man” was used to mean “humans,” but that time has passed.

    Nevertheless, the word mankind comes from the more gender-neutral use of the word man.

    Or rather, the word man comes from a very different word, “mann,” used in a language spoken over 1,000 years ago on an island where England and Scotland are today. That language is called Old English or Anglo-Saxon, and it was spoken and written down by the dominant English island tribes of the late first millennium AD. Unlike modern English, Anglo-Saxon had two words that could mean male: mann, which could also mean “humans,” and “wæpenmann,” which meant “person with a weapon and/or penis,” and only referred to males.

    The original Anglo-Saxon “mann” is called an autohyponym, or a word which can mean both a member of a category and a member of one of its subcategories. This happens with animal names quite a lot: dog/bitch, fox/vixen, goose/gander, duck/drake. In these pairs, the first member both means the animal in general and one sex of the animal. Another example might be: house/apartment, where “house” can either mean a free standing human dwelling or any dwelling.

    In modern English, man is used very infrequently as an auto-hyponym. Possibly that’s because it’s become too confusing to use “man” — it’s hard to know what it means in any given context when we have no word like wæpenmann that refers exclusively to males. But we do have the words “person” and “human” that clearly refer to both sexes, so those have eclipsed “man” when speaking about everyone.

    In modern English we only have the unmarked “man” and the marked “woman” to refer to the two sexes, but in Old English there was also the marked “wæpenmann” that referred only to males (literally “weapon-man,” either referring to arms or to the penis) and “wif” and “wifmann” meaning “woman” (the origin of the modern “wife” and “woman”). So in Old English “mann” is a bit more gender neutral than “man” is in modern English, but not entirely so.

    Basically, in modern English, we have no equivalent to the word “mann.” Our contemporary word man may look more like “mann,” but over time its use has evolved to be closer to “wæpenmann,” a male person.

    The word “mankind” can be traced back to a specific use of this lost word “mann” from the Anglo-Saxon word “mann-cynn,” meaning both a group of men and all humanity. The word mankind was formed from man and kind as in ‘type, sort.’ It has always much more typically shown the meaning ‘humanity in general’ rather than ‘adult male human beings in general’.” But, the word “man” is rarely used these days to mean “all humanity.” So “mankind” retained its gender-neutral meaning in English for much longer than “man” did.

    To a person who spoke Anglo-Saxon, the word “mann-cynn” may have been synonymous with “humanity” because they didn’t think women were important. From the perspective of people 1,000 years ago, humanity really was “a group of men.”

    Should You Use “Mankind” or “Humanity”? Given the ambiguous history of our language, what is a modern speaker and writer to do? Should we keep using “mankind” because its historical use sort of fits into an idea of “gender neutrality” we invented relatively recently?

    Regarding using a term today as gender-neutral because it seems likely to be gender-neutral in the 10th or even the fifteenth century, meanings are what they are today, not what they were then. Many words change meaning and tone over time.

    Most corpora suggest that humanity is more common than mankind in recent English usage, and that mankind is coming to be used less frequently than it previously was, but that mankind remains not particularly rare. The trends in the use of these two words would be well worth watching over the coming years. It may well be the case that a more decisive shift away from using mankind could be in progress, but this would need some careful corpus-based study to confirm.

    You can see this shift happening even in popular culture. Consider the famous opening lines of the Star Trek TV show. In the 1960s, when the original show aired, the starship Enterprise was on a mission “to boldly go where no man has gone before.” By the late 1980s, when Star Trek: The Next Generation aired, this mission was “to boldly go where no one has gone before.” This change was not a nod to political correctness. It was simply a reflection of how quickly the use of “man” and “mankind” were changing throughout the English language.

    But even if most people are no longer using “mankind” to mean “all humans,” shouldn’t we be true to the origins of the term? Doesn’t mankind mean “all humans” because that’s what it meant historically?

    Using etymology to govern usage is known as the “etymological fallacy.” Usage is governed by, you guessed it, use, not the origin of the word. The origin, of course, influences how a word is used in that it provides the starting point, but meanings shift over time, and lexicographers come up with their definitions by surveying how people actually use the words, not by studying the etymology.
    In other words, it is unreasonable to determine today’s usage based on how the language was used a thousand years ago. If it were reasonable, we’d still be using “silly” to mean “blessed, fortunate” and “awful” to mean “inspiring wonder.”. If people today perceive it as sexist, it is sexist, regardless of how it was used in ages past.

    Words are what they mean right now, and over the past forty years “humanity” has become more acceptable than “mankind” if you want to refer to all human beings, both male and female.

    Trudeau’s suggestion to use peoplekind from now on, isn’t going to work because no one will use it. It’s DOA! Just stick with humanity and/or humankind and we’ll all be fine. 🙂

  18. maianne santos santo says:

    This piece of misery, is an embarrassment to this spineless country, he takes flak for everything he does, he is taking it in India now, moron leading morons.

  19. Wen says:

    Wow man! That’s deep! 👍

    1. junk parts says:

      Everything with Man it is tends to suck. So leave man out of everything and things will succeed. ITs mans downfall. lolol ITs always mans downfall. leave it. women dont want to be defunded bother wombs. really? stupid

  20. junk parts says:

    meant, they dont want to be defined by just their wombs. More like , heart and souls. The women are special, they MAKE US. so lets be correct and not selfish. We have the junk, they have the divine parts = divinity. Thru them and only them is that divinity passed on. Lets remember that men dont carry nor pass on anything remotely close to divine. Mitachondria is real. Jesus knew. Jesus is Jewish. The Jews failed? no the Jewish men failed, ppl. Women wake to your elegance.

Leave a Comment