[sampvt]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I'm glad you acknowledge there isn't a correct answer. That's precisely why I'm asking the question, because when someone (not just the OP) talks of how 'real men' will or would act, it's important to qualify that and find out what kind of behaviour and mannerisms constitute a 'real man'. The problem isn't so much the defining of what it is, but that in doing so you're defining what it is not. And the notion that someone may not be a 'real man' (or indeed woman) because they do or do not act in a certain manner could very well be quite offensive to some - which is the issue in the first place.

As for the bit in bold, hasn't it just.

so by using that analogy, it would only be people that feel they dont fall into the category of real men that will be upset. Based on those findings, where should these outsiders sit in respect of the human gender issue. Surely its up to all of us to be allowed to be viewed however we feel we should be viewed. I think the issue here is not what a real man constitutes, but what some people perception of the real man issue means.