I can understand backward patriarchal reasoning coming from a male, but from a woman - and of all people, a leader of women? It says something profound about leadership - and, if anything - what it says about followers is not very flattering at all.

While many people define being a man or a woman as being dependent on reproductive capacity, it is worth noting (should such a superficial argument present itself) that there are many males and females who are born male or female and cannot reproduce either. Are they to be considered 'not male' and 'not female'? Or does that only apply to transgender people?

What would Jesus do? One thing is obvious, if there is one thing Jesus would NOT do - is to behave like his followers.

Let's say there existed 100 people. Let's say all of them became leaders. All of their purposes are now obsolete and pointless, because 100/100 leaders = 0 followers and leaders need followers to lead.

You can pass any law you like to make 'criminals' of those you don't like and then justify it with whatever stupid reasoning that appeals to you. Is that rule of law - or tyranny?

I wonder why bigots think their conservative and puritanical version of 'God' made the male body with a prostate gland that also co-incidentally 'just happens' to be a 'g-spot'?