It would be very appealing to use that as the translation, since purisa sounds and looks like “person”, and “man” is the first 3 letters of “manussa”.
But according to PED:
manussa: a human being. (m.)
Manussa [fr. manus, cp. Vedic manuṣya. Connected etym. with Goth. manna=man] a human being, man The popular etym. connects m. with Manu(s), the ancestor of men, e. g. KhA 123: “Manuno apaccā ti manussā, porāṇā pana bhaṇanti ʻ mana – ussannatāya manussa ʼ; te Jambudīpakā, Aparagoyānikā, Uttarakurukā Pubbavidehakā ti catubbidhā.” Similarly with the other view of connecting it with "mind VvA 18: “manassa ussannatāya manussā” etc. Cp also VvA 23,
and purisa is male, as opposed to itthi (female)
purisa: a male; a man. (m.)
Purisa [according to Geiger, Gr. § 303 the base is *pūrṣa, from which the Vedic form puruṣa, and the Prk. – P. form purisa. The further contraction *pussa *possa yielded posa (q. v.). From the Prk. form puliśa (Māgadhī) we get pulla] man (as representative of the male sex, contrasted to itthi woman, e. g. at A iii.209; iv.197 J i.90; v.72; PvA 51). Definitions of the C. are “puriso nāma manussa – puriso na yakkho na peto etc.” (i. e. man kat) e)coxh/n) Vin iv.269 (the same expln for purisa – puggala at Vin iv.214); “seṭṭh’ aṭṭhena puri setī ti puriso ti satto vuccati” VvA 42
In Thanissaro’s AN 8.30, he translates purisa = person. Is there support for that in the EBT, or is he just taking the liberty of imposing our modern values of gender equality?
Assuming the PED definitions are correct, I’ll stick with these as my translations:
purisa = man/male
itthi = woman/female
manussa = mankind/human