> Regarding male-only traits as prestigious implies that they are superior to female-only traits Nope. It in no way implies that. That was an assumption you

> Regarding male-only traits as prestigious implies that they are superior to female-only traits Nope. It in no way implies that. That was an assumption you made. Among male traits, strength has historically been prestigious. How on earth is that implying female-only traits are inferior? Give me a first-order logic chain or something here because I'm not seeing the inferences. > Whether or not you think sexism is insulting I do think sexism is insulting. His post was not sexism.