Think of this paper as an exercise in applied philosophy of language. It has both semantic and deontic concerns. More than about the meaning of ‘marriage,’ it is about how one goes about determining the meaning of social kind terms like ‘marriage’. But it is equally about the place of philosophy of language in the legislative sphere, and inter alia, about the roles and responsibilities of philosophers in public life.

This paper provides a definite argument that allegedly sex-neutral generic 'man' and sex-neutral pronouns are not. It shows that they acts as vehicles for a perverse contingent a priori that masculinizes the logic of the language.