This is not a rebuttal, of course, but the natural followup for me that follows from this is whether there is anything DISTINCT about being a proud male vs a proud female? Anything at all?

I don’t think so, not really. I think that by nature and culture both, we’re inclined to try and make distinctions between men and women, and there definitely are physical differences (vive la difference!), but in terms of ethical evaluation, no, there’s no difference between men and women.

You seem to be advocating a sort of psychological androgyny. Are the traits that make one a solid male any different than a solid, confident female?

I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

If not, then shouldn’t we jettison the gender-specific terminology and just say we want to be confident, capable humans, or people, etc?

We probably should, but I don’t think we’re culturally there yet.

if you do believe in this psychic androgyny, it seems to be a different position than those of the vast majority of men from the past, doesn’t it?

I should say so.

That part of the new and improved ethical mindset is the refusal to even ask the question what is it to be a man, except as a stage to pass through en route to universalism?

I’d say there’s a lot of truth to that.

I just wanted to ask Alex a question about this. Replace male with female at the start and end, and you could say the same for what it is to be a woman.

This is not a rebuttal, of course, but the natural followup for me that follows from this is whether there is anything DISTINCT about being a proud male vs a proud female? Anything at all?

You seem to be advocating a sort of psychological androgyny. Are the traits that make one a solid male any different than a solid, confident female?

If not, then shouldn’t we jettison the gender-specific terminology and just say we want to be confident, capable humans, or people, etc? You see my point…

Next question: if you do believe in this psychic androgyny, it seems to be a different position than those of the vast majority of men from the past, doesn’t it? Valuing machismo mutated into gender-nonspecific valuation of intelligence, courage, compassion, etc. That part of the new and improved ethical mindset is the refusal to even ask the question what is it to be a man, except as a stage to pass through en route to universalism? LIke Paul said, neither Greek nor Jew… to abandon ascriptive categories for those based upon individual volition?