I am surprised to find we agree on something, namely that the term 'person' does not apply to creatures like him. What the term 'man' means and should apply to we seem in slightly less agreement on.
Second of all, a man should not think a woman is so different to and lesser than a man that it is an insult to a man to be included in the collective, gender-neutral term for a human being known as 'person'. That sort of thinking is SO last millennium.
TIME changed its annual award from Man of the Year to Person of the Year in 1999. Prior to that, since its inception in 1927 , 'Man of the Year' was awarded to a man or a group of men. So 'man' meant man, not human, as some used to wishfully suggest.
If a woman was considered worthy of the title, which happened almost never, just enough to give the impression that women are a whole different species, then the award was for 'Woman of the Year' and once for 'Women of the Year'.
But this millennium, as symbolised by the gender-neutral, politically progressive not 'correct' term 'person', we are attempting to suggest women are not a whole other species than men, neither are we 'not men', but we are human beings just like at least some men. WOW! Imagine that. Women are persons, and men (some of them) are persons too. Who knew? Not Donald.