Yes, but that definition you quote is for "man" (often written as the more archaic "mankind"), not "men". You're actually using definition a.1: "an individual human; especially : an adult male human", in the plural, to refer to adult male humans of our field. Admittedly a pedantic point, I wouldn't bother if it didn't contribute to a real-world problem.
Now take your self-righteous offtopicness and shoveoff. I contribute nothing to the problems of society by exercising freedom of vocabulary. You want to see real problems? Go look at pictures of the shelled remains of children in Syria. You're suggesting that I am contributing to a "real-world problem" is insulting.
Even if we want to consider the furthering of systemic sexism through benign use of vocabulary a "real-world problem", you are more to blame than I by trying to convert an innocent phrase into an example of hatred. Words only have the power that you allow them to. I accept no responsibility for your oversensitivity.
Meh, it's a smaller problem than most, but it's also far easier to solve than most. Why avoid making the world a tiny bit better if it costs you nothing? If making minor tweaks to our word choices could avoid violence to Syrian children, too, that'd be grand, but alas...
This is not exactly a response to you, BTW (since I can't imagine you'd be convinced) but for other readers.
I think that for the sake of backwards compatability with the linguistic upbringing of most English speakers, we should use "men" to refer to both human genders.
If this means that male gendered individuals will have to be pluralized as "males" and never "men", then that's something we should live with.
