I don't understand the implication any way I cut it. 1. Assuming he was trying to put "man" and "woman" on the equal footing, they're grammatically incorrect. There is a man or men. There is so such thing as "a men". 2. Let's forget the fact that this is an obvious public education failure. What does the statement "amen and awoman" accomplish? It's a grammatical fragment that serves no transfer of message except pure virtue signaling. 3. If I were to dissect the word "amen" itself, its root is not based on representation of male. It would be like having to iterate comMANd and comWOMANd on the same sentence because that puts man and woman on an equal footing. 4. What happened to all the poor underrepresented genders? How bigoted of them to say there are only two genders! And why aren't all of them getting angry that they're excluded from being recognized?