See also: An XYsplanation
The man and the woman are the genres of Humankind, and there’s a comparable aspect to so very many other species of creature too: the bifurcation into sexes, roughly chromosomally-aligned, is foundational to who is essential (as in essence, at a minimum) and who comes to be expecting, generally speaking, although in some creatures the ova are set down in a safe place.
And there’s so often a great deal of considerable divergence seen between the distinct genres within the same species: consider the mallard (having the brilliant drake, as you can see in the picture), or the pea-birds, peacock and peahen. Not to mention scale insects or whatever.
Women can do a lot of things – there’s no cosmic law that precludes them from doing whatever in an absolute sense, other than the figurative sowing of the proverbial oats. But they are a distinct sort of creature from the proper man.
“Men are from Mars, women are from Venus” is a terrific metaphor. (If it’s a well-worn cliché, that’s because it’s true.) We know that in the matter of love, men aren’t averse to novelty, while women would like to know that they’ll still be loved tomorrow. (See also: “Female neediness is real, but it’s not a tragedy” by Ruxandra Teslo)
It is common sociologically that men go to war while women keep the home fires burning. Women are more innaturated for caregiving. They pretty much have a monopoly on giving proper milk, for example, but it goes farther than that. They are good at concurrent thing-arranging, and they do a lot of tangible, important good for the fitness of the kinds of Humankind overall. They like to make things lovely and still yet they are lovely themselves. They are pretty much categorically a fine thing, I should think.
Women will never be the equal of men in strength – while some women will be stronger than some men, the strongest men will be significantly stronger than the strongest women. Throughout nature, it makes sense for evolution to take advantage of the necessary bifurcation (or other fanciful arrangement, like whatever plants do) brought upon so many of its extant species by the reproductive mechanism of sex. We shouldn’t be surprised to see substantive differences along sexual lines, a certain clustered distinctiveness in the preponderance of proper persons or even spotted hyenas if you’re really good at spotting.
Women are of the fairer sex, not the stronger sex, to say nothing of the matter of intellectual fortitude, which is also a subject of import. I recall that it’s been found that women cluster more towards the middle of the bell(e) curve, while it’s predominantly men who fill out the raster of datums of natural (ideally privilege) far out along the tails. Nevertheless, a selection of women are smart cookies in their own right, notwithstanding their “girly persuasion” or whatever they consider the central lexical representation of being of that genre of Humankind to be, the part that goes at the end of “u go”. They are the Human repository of all that is good and beautiful, for without their beauty and goodness, we couldn’t continue to be, or at least, we would come out a big loser in the progenitive aspect, which is a needful thing for each of the kinds of Humankind: let us not forget, all men were born of woman, although not always through the proper birth canal, like they talk about in the Scottish Play.
I do acknowledge that there are people who would like to switch teams, some of whom may effect a modicum or more of genuine physiological transformation onto themselves to fit the mien of the chosen team, and there are lots of interesting biological edge cases if you dig into the weeds. I mean to expound a coherent view of Team Innie “versus” Team Outie that is of sufficient quality for remunerative employment in the public service.
Of course, whether you be of the masculine genre of man, or of the feminine genre of woman, you can just do things:
