The difference here is that “man” was originally neutral and a secondary form diverged from it while the original form remained gender neutral.

I don’t think that this is an example of generic masculine. Not like “fireman”, for example. I think that it’s starting to become that way because the diverged form causes some people conflate the two by being essentially homonyms, and those people are pushing that as a new reality instead of understanding that it’s a different term. Though, I empathize with the initial reaction to think that. More importantly, I do think that it’s needed to adopt new terms to avoid the issue of it seeming like a case of generic masculine.

My issue is telling others that it’s a gendered term when it’s not, for the same reason it’s good to change to different terms. By that, I mean we shouldn’t be pushing a divide needlessly, and in this case by treating people like they are being sexist or misogynistic when they clearly are not.

It would be fine to say “it feels like a gendered term”, “it’s too similar”, or that “it’s reminiscent of the gendered form”. But that is different than treating it like it’s a fact.

Is generic masculine strange? Infuriatingly, no, considering how women have been treated throughout history. We absolutely should adopt better language to avoid that and grow past that archaic ideology. But that shouldn’t come at the cost of pushing down other people.