Was just watching a women's rugby match, listening to sports commentators (never generally known for being the smartest people on the planet), and someone was referred to as a "taliswoman", rather than a talisman. This irked me slightly because, as far as I am aware, talisman has nothing to do with gender, and comes from the Arabic for a religious rite, and so exchanging -man for -woman seems just a ridiculous thing to do. One person thought that we should be fortunate that female commentators are not referring to themselves as com-women-tators! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm aware that for the vast majority of words ending in -man it makes sense to use -woman for the female equivalent: chairwoman, spokeswoman, policewoman, etc. But this is because the -man implies a person taking part in the activity, etc. So using the appropriate gender makes complete sense. But "talisman" isn't based on that principle, and is just coincidental that it ends in -man. Thoughts? Have you heard any other efforts to crow-bar gender equality into words where it etymologically has no place? Should we just accept it as an example of our language adapting to the times? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!