Feminism out of control?

[Montmorency]

Peeves, you hold a pretty strange view, so as a trained hermeneute of the Latin language back it up with some exegetics and explain why it is wrong to consider homo a substantively inclusive word, and rightly a synonym of vir.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An interesting tidbit from an essay on femina vs. mulier:

In Republican prose and comedy it is almost exclusively mulier
that is used to place emphasis on the sex of a woman, both in
explicit and implied contrasts with vir.

[Quintilian] comments on viri et feminae in terms which imply that it had
become a fixed phrase

The use of homo here in opposition to mulier wnere vir is expected
well illustrates the decline which vir underwent in vulgar Latin in favour
of homo, which alone enters the Romance languages. The use of homo to
designate a man as distinguished from a woman is found as early as Plautus
(Cist. 723 mi homo et mea mulier, vos saluto), but first occurs with frequency
in late vulgar Latin

Assumed in another paper:

Homo and femina are not parallel terms etymologically. The usage arises from the mis-translation of homo as man
in English. Homo in Latin, derived from the same root as the Latin humanus meaning human, signifies human being in
the generic sense. Thus homo faber, homo sapiens, etc. should include femina, or Latin for woman, female gender,just as
they would include vir, the Latin for man, male gender. English, in translating both homo and vir as man, erases the
distinction made in Latin, thereby incorporating the male gender meaning into the English usage of homo

I don't think many support your version of humanus as a portmanteau of homo + manus; they're just cognate, distinct. They've meant a few things, but not that.