In contemporary times, manuṣya is commonly considered to be just human being. Some people tend to use it as a translation of human. But this is actually an extremely narrow mleccha way of looking at the term manuṣya, when there is a lot of śāstriya nuance to it.
Both terms aren't actually same, even though they seem similar, due to mleccha intervention.
Niruktakāra Yāska has explained manuṣya quite succintly -
manuṣyāḥ kasmāt ? matvā karmāṇi sīvyanti / manasyamānena sṛṣṭā / manasyatiḥ punarmanasvībhāve / manoḥ apatyam, manuṣo vā / ~ Nirukta (3.2)
From what (dhātu) is manuṣya derived? (They're so called because) they sīvya (stitch, connect or link) their karmas by manana (√man) [i.e. they do mananapūrvaka karma), or because they were sṛṣṭa by a manasyamān (√manas) i.e. Prajāpati . Again manasya (√manas) is used in the sense of manasvībhāva. Or because they're the apatya of Manu (manu + yat, ṣuk = manuṣyaḥ ~ Aṣṭādhyāyi 4.161 : manorjātāvañyatau ṣuk ca), or of Manuṣ (manuṣ + yat = manuṣyaḥ).
So, here Yāskācārya gives 4 types of nirvacana of the term 'manuṣya'. In the first nirvacana, he takes the dhātu √man to derive manuṣya. In the second nirvacana, he takes the dhātu √manas. Both of these nirvacanas are established on the basis of mananaśakti of manuṣyas, however the second focuses more on the manana by Prajāpati which lead to the utpatti of manuṣyas,
as Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (1.8.20a) states -
mananācca manuṣyāste prajanātprathitāḥ prajāḥ /
The other two vyutpattis, mentioned by Yāska, are on the basis of Manu. On the basis of Aṣṭādhyāyi (4.161), one way is by adding 'yat' pratyaya to 'manu' with 'ṣuk' āgama, yielding 'manuṣya', where manuṣya means the offspring (apatya) of Manu. And the second way is by taking manu as ṣakārānta (manuṣ) instead of ukārānta (manu), and adding 'yat' pratyaya to it directly, yielding 'manuṣya', where manuṣya means the offspring of Manuṣ.
These four nirvacanas by Yāska, explain the term manuṣya fully.