Should we change the name for the term "strawman" when used in debates?

Introduction:

First of all, it can be offensive whenever we treat male as the default gender. Doesn't it get annoying? Second, neither straws or arguments have biological sex and neither do they have gender, because their not alive. and its not anywear near hum*n rationality, so this stuff can't decide what gender it wants to be. Third, language changes all the time, so its no biggie.

First argument:

We don't want to offend any non-males (such as fem*les and non-binaries, just to name 0.001% of all possible genders--i'm wrong, gender is an infinate scale so even 0.0001% isn't acurrate). Don't wom*n deserve something? Why not give them a good old saying? and maybe the queer population can get their own sayings too, what do you think?

Second argument:

we don't want to look dumb. Everyone knows straw has no gender. They will think humans are dumb. We need to show people we are actually concistent with gender. Otherwise people will start mocking us for calling straw a male. They will use this to undermine gender identity.

Third argument:

language changes. Brain-rot shows this is the case.

Conclusion:

Therefore we should replace strawman with strawbeing. It removes any gender words. Also, the word being no longer personifys the straw, like man does. No one will think that straw is a person or even a creature any more. Straw is not alive. Straw is no where near a man.

"Man is a gender neutral word meaning person...Wo-man is a female person...Etymology indeed."

While it is true that man used to refer to any human, that's not what man means anymore. People say men and women for a reason. Men now means males only. It's kinda like how they used to only refer to a group of people but now you can use it to refer to just one person. The opposing side doesn't seem to get that language changes over time. Sorry but etymology cannot be used as a justification for this

"A strawman is a human effigy stuffed with straw and as such has no reproductive systems or appendages to worry about..."

which is precisely my point. Since strawbeings have no sex, we should realize there's no reason in calling them strawmen or strawomen. You don't want to look dumb, do you? Strawbeings aren't even humans, so that adds even more dumbness to the mix

But hey, strawman doesn't work for me, so you will have live with it. But why doesn't anyone really seem care that much?

 "So why should we care to alter an established bit of debating terminology for the sake of the few and their particular whimsies."

...so what? You are legally required to recognise the name Gulf of America despite it being called the Gulf of Mexico for centuries. Words change and you have to live with it. Stop trying to put language into the freezer

"So Pro chooses the more recent synonymity of man and male, whereas I prefer the synonymity of man and person...And ultimately I am correct."

1st, That's not really true. Man typically always refers to a male identifying person in modern speech. 2nd, Even if man is sometimes used to mean just any gender of person, it might still be not a good idea. Its best to avoid words that even could be potentially offensive, not just the ones that are directly offensive or have a 100% chance to offend anyone.

Enough of blaming the trans movement too. so lame it is.

It is still a bad idea to call something a man that when it isn't. At the end of the day, Whether you use one definition of man or the other one, the so called "strawman" ain't a man. It is neither male nor a human. lol.

I still think that "strawbeing" is the best option on the table..

The UK does not get to decide what a body of water should be called when that body of water is across and entire ocean from them. Words change and they have real impact on the world. You can't just ignore language evolution.

"Man" is only singular when it refers to humankind and "stawman" ain't talking about homo sapiens as a species. So even ignoring the gender part, using "strawman" is still bad. And "man" can still be offense because it can be misunderstood as excluding non-males.

When the law says no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, it ain't talking about strawmen in there. Strawmen do not count as persons, but the name sounds like they are persons. "Strawbeing" prevents any legal issues that may be caused. You can attack strawbeings without having to worry about getting sent to jail.

We don't want to look dumb either, like we think that straws are humans and/or males. The kids will be looking at what adults talk about and hear "strawman" and be like "Oh adults are so dumb for thinking straw is alive and human" and then the kids will think it will be easy to overthrow the adults because they think adults are just a bunch of complete idiots who can't tell the difference between a human and a piece of hay.

In summary: "Stawbeing" is the best option. It prevents any confusion and misunderstandings. It sounds cooler and trendier anyways. We can look both smart and cool.