You say that because the term man is to glorify men
No I don't think 'man' glorifies men. But when it's used to make women invisible it does damage us.
... but I see it as man = human, woman = human+womb
EXACTLY. The concept of 'man' (male human) became normal, the human standard.
To be a woman (female human) became defined as a man with additional bits.
But women are not men with extra bits. We are standard humans.Normal. Central.
Humanity is both genders, not one with the other one being the same with an additional capacity to birth.
Saying we are special because of this extra bit is just a nice way of saying we are not the central, standard type of human.
Nor are we bees with only one female and lots of male workers. We are gendered approximately equal in numbers which is a very different kind of society.
So hypothetically I could argue that because of language today women are put on a pedestal while men are just the general ole population
That was exactly the Victorian justification for keeping women separate, in the home, under the protection of males - because they said women are special and belonged on pedestals middle class or upper class women that is).
Some old fashioned courtesies can be very sweet like opening doors and bunches of flowers. But when push comes to shove, special is a graceful option which cannot replace the safety, power and resources of being a central human being, not an add-on. As people so often say here core is better!
I love popular films and novels as well as intellectual research. But enjoying romantic adventures or fantasy doesn't switch my brain off completely. I still see the deeper meanings in how we humans use language. There's masses of research on it.