Sully has a new part of the Dish: Ask Andrew Anything. His latest underlines the beginning of a discussion that needs to happen in a world in which maleness is challenged.

I love the thought and earnestness of these little clips. However, I don’t think Andrew is entirely right in his description, but he is attempting to circumscribe a word that has meaning for a human sex (male) but isn’t necessarily present in all members of that sex and/or only members of that sex.

Biology and culture are hard hard hard to separate. But he may highlight something here that is at the core of this reinvention and reintegration of the masculine into identity.

I do not mean male in a biological sense, here, but instead a spectrum of behavior informed by biological trends. Males tend to be larger, have more musculature, and certainly have much more testosterone. These are, of course, tendencies within our species and not rules. Women produce testosterone just as men produce estrogen and need those hormones to be healthy. So what is Andrew getting at?

What I’m hearing is an effort to rephrase masculine/feminine within the context of an individual’s personality. Think Myers-Briggs. It isn’t better or worse to be introverted or extroverted, they are simply personality traits. Straight or gay? High libido or low? Vanilla or kink? Masculine or feminine?

Most of us sit somewhere between the spectrum endpoints listed. Thus, females can be very masculine and men can be very feminine and that can be a great thing. In fact, I’d argue the dynamism is what makes for the most interesting and world-changing individuals.

I’d love to hear how femininity has been essential to Sully’s identity. It’s been key to establishing mine.

Tagged with: