[eozoon]

Think of it as men = "people with y chromosome" varible setting, or a "People with y chromosome (hereinafter referred to as men)" in a contract.

The scientifically accurate way to describe the subject of the article is "people with y chromosome" but that is clunky to repeat so they want to designate a shorthand for it, while acknowledging that without proper definition the shorthand would be vague and not accurate description.

I'd think defining your terms clearly is perfectly suitable for a scientific journal.

[NhanH]

Defining unusual term is perfectly suitable for scientific journal. Men == people with y chromosome is something that has been used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing), and if you have to define it, you might as well define the term “define”.

In the context of this paper, no one is gonna ask “what do you mean by men” if you remove that disclaimer. Sure, another paper that discuss some social issues with men might have to clarify whether it is the y-chromosome men or all men, but this isn’t the case here

[RoyalHenOil]

>Men == people with y chromosome is something that has been used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing)

The pattern of sexual inheritance in humans was only discovered in the 1920s, and the link between sexual inheritance and the X and Y chromosomes was not discovered until 1959. (Before that, sex was identified based on secondary sex characteristics, which do not perfectly adhere to the XX/XY inheritance system.)

Scientific research journals date back only to the 1600s, and they did not develop the rigorous standards we expect today until the 1800s.

[bitcurious]

Medical writings have been ascribing disease to bad airs, humors, gods, and curses, head shape, and all kinds of junk for thousands of years, yet somehow we evolved past that, no?

[mjg59]

The correlation between Y chromosomes and sexual characteristics wasn't discovered until the early 20th century, so no. For the vast majority of human existence, the term "Men" has been used without reference to any underlying genetic status.

[haldujai]

To be clear this isn't a research paper, it is a PR news summary designed to be accessible.

[Affric]

> used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing)

The Middle English word was "mannen" and in old english "mann" meant roughly the same as we mean with "human" now, i.e. without respect to sex.

I don't think the paragraph will be looked back on as anything except a sign of troubled political times (rather than communicating anything of use with regards to the information in the article) but what you've written is incorrect.