who says that it is truly correct, or grammatically correct?

It is grammatically correct thought "truly correct" is in the eyes of the beholder

because its grammatically correct does that mean its morally correct?

The question is, WHY is it seen as grammatically correct? Who made the rule? That's what this thread is getting at.

It's just the way we say it. I don't see why it's a problem.

It's a problem because the attitudes behind the origins of the words were sexist. It's a problem because those attitudes still exist today.

How would you say it? Repairperson. That's technically not even a word. It's just that we've adapted English to be politically correct.

I just don't feel that it's offensive or sexist. We are all mankind, aren't we?

The -person compounds are increasingly used, especially in the press, on radio and television, and in government and corporate communications, with the object of avoiding sex discrimination in language. Earlier practice was to use -man as the final element in such compounds regardless of the sex of the person referred to (anchorman; businessman) or to use -woman when referring to a woman (anchorwoman; businesswoman). Some object to these new -person compounds on the grounds that they are awkward or unnecessary, insisting that the equivalent and long-used compounds in -man are generic, not sex-marked. Others reject the -man compounds as discriminatory when applied to women or to persons whose sex is unknown or irrelevant.

For the most part i dont think the words need to changes. It's the attitudes that I have the problem with.

haven't read the whole thing yet, short on time
however, I'd just like to point out that some other languages use words that have no gender. also, refering to the first post, in english in a group you say Hi guys, it is also possible to say Hi people, which is, for example,
normal in many languages.
So I don't think it's got anything to do with sexist behaviour, simple language imperative

I don't think we all have a sexist attitude when we use words like businessman. If you are a man of business, that's just what you are. You call a woman in business a businesswoman. When you refer to both, the masculine form is used. Wouldn't it be equally sexist if the feminine form was used? We could have had a whole new word for when males and females are together like business people since the dawn of language, and that includes Latin, although I don't know much about Latin. That's what English came from, though, as you all well know (don't want to seem like Captain Obvious there) so maybe Latin should have always referred to a group with the generic term. However, it goes with the masculine form. Maybe that was sexism because women played such a small role in the politics and language-making of the day (and why was that?). Anyway, today we go way out of our way to be politically correct. You can't offend anyone these days. Freedom of speech and of the press will only get you so far, because people will get pissed. Anyway, so that's what we are doing today. We are adapting our language as it needs to be adapted. Not everyone thinks it needs to be adapted, but it's not hurting anyone to do so, and a lot of people want it to change.

I'm on quick reply, so I can only see a few lines up. If this post isn't consistent and contradicts itself, just read the last 10 lines or so.