Did you mean "people" by writing "men" in this sentence?

Yes, I did.
Any other suggestion?

I suggest you use people instead of men to clarify the meaning. The word "men" often means male persons. However in this sentence you refer to not only male but female individuals.

To me, this is the same thing as deprecating the usage of 'gay' as 'merry, carefree' because now it means something else. What, is the language people spoke 100 years ago invalid? We can have quotes from that time, you know.

Thank you for your opinion, Ooneykcall. It was only a suggestion. Cosidering the aim of this site I suggested that usage. Because we are not native English we should ask a native speaker to tell their opinion on that topic, which I am going to do now.

When I read the sentence (before seeing the comments) I thought of men as in male persons. If I was translating the German (the only other language I understand) I would say "people", but I note the German is an indirect translation.

I think used in the plural like it is here, it (in my opinion) can only mean "male persons". It is true that English has changed to move away from sexist expressions. Some say "humankind" instead of "mankind", "chairperson" instead of "chairman" etc. In the old days you'd say "they all agreed to a man" even though there were females in the group, "man first landed on the moon in 1969", meaning "mankind" or "people" etc.

On balance, if the direct translations (which I can't read) relate to "people" rather than "male persons" I'd suggest you use "people" in this sentence.

What words mean is in the mind of the reader/listener, you know, including sexism. :> (I will not have people claim that 'man/masc. gender' being the grammatically default option privileges the male sex - as if the default option were by default (:P) better than the custom one. That said, differentiating between 'male' and 'any person' is obviously convenient.)

This certainly isn't the modern way to say it, this sentence, but if we have sentences with XIX century grammar why can't we have this either, as an example? I don't think we have many sentences on Tatoeba where 'man' is used to mean 'person', do we? If we already have dozens of those, we may perhaps not need this one, true. If we lack such examples, however, adding a few of them would make the corpus more diverse, I think.

I agree with patgfisher on this.

Name ucin adamlar biri-birini gawanyar?