[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

Pretending these differences don't exist doesn't help anyone.

You're trying to make a motte and bailey argument.

Spoiler!

[In a] medieval castle…there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along.

So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.

In short, a motte is a boring but defendable position.
A bailey is the position you actually want to hold, but can't defend.

Your motte: "gender differences are a neutral, objective fact, why are you giving me a hard time for this?"

Your bailey: "ha ha it's shameful for men to be like girls."


I don't actually think calling men girly or women manly is necessarily in itself an insult to either gender, but more a statement that it's somehow shameful for men to be anything other than a very narrow stereotype of "manly man". (And probably vice versa.)

Btw, if NHL hockey players are not "manly" enough for you, then dude you need to readjust your definition of "manly"...

PS: If it's not insulting to call men "girly", then why use it as an insult?