Ordinarily the genders approach sex from opposite standpoints – the males with intent to appease their subjectivity through pleasure, the females with intent to appease their objectivity through reproduction (or the possibility thereof), neither of which approaches are really compatible with the other, though some degree of compromise, usually favouring females, is eventually reached.
The synthetic approach to sex, which stems from a kind of gender-neutral standpoint, is to reduce both the motives of pleasure and reproduction through recourse to contraception – male and female – so that neither gender achieves anything comparable to a thesis/antithesis, pleasure/reproduction dichotomy.
In relation to the perpetuation of diurnal life, it could be argued that the female virtue of virtually infinite patience vis-à-vis children stands in sharp contrast to the eternal self-indulgence of males vis-à-vis females.
* * * *
One thing we can of which we can be certain is that any resurrection of the thesis/antithesis dichotomy from an omega-oriented standpoint, such as makes for distinctions of good and bad, light and shade, white and black, etc., stemming from a hegemonically sensible standpoint, will not be furthered by the English language, that bastion of synthetic amorality and gender neutrality, but only by languages, like German and even French, that grammatically recognize gender division and accordingly differentiate between male and female nouns, as well as both of these from neuter nouns, which are effectively genderless, whether in relation to infinitives, the diminutive forms of nouns, fractions, or whatever.
Instead of the 'grey zone' or 'twilight zone' that, thanks in large part to the English language, currently dominates the world, we shall have, with gender-based language, the preponderating resurrection of the light forever sensibly hegemonic over a predominantly dark or, more correctly, pseudo-dark pseudo-sensual antithesis, like the neutralized she-dragon, as it were, that would exist in pseudo-metachemical subordination to metaphysics, as to the 3:1 brightness/darkness of metaphysical free psyche/bound soma from a standpoint, in pseudo-space under time, in which the pseudo-darkness/pseudo-brightness of pseudo-bound soma/pseudo-free psyche would also be 3:1, in keeping with the absolutism of noumenal and, in the case of pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-noumenal criteria.
The resurrection of what is, in effect, a 3:1 superthesis/subthesis metaphysical integrity hegemonic over a 3:1 pseudo-antisuperthesis/pseudo-antisubthesis pseudo-metachemical integrity will constitute the resurrection per se, following the salvation of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics and correlative counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, as from an elemental/unelemental phenomenal atomic hegemony over a pseudo-elemental/pseudo-unelemental pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-atomic subordination to a superelemental/subelemental noumenal atomic hegemony over a pseudo-superelemental/pseudo-subelemental pseudo-noumenal pseudo-atomic subordination in which the superelemental will be akin, in metaphysical free psyche, to the light and the pseudo-superelemental akin, in pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma, to the pseudo-darkness (since darkness proper would, as noted above, be the subelemental aspect of metaphysics), the former absolutely moral (superthesis) and the latter absolutely unmoral (pseudo-antisuperthesis), with a corresponding distinction between that which, in metaphysics, is holy and what, in pseudo-metachemistry, is unclear, forever fated to a secondary church-hegemonic status in the pseudo-brightness of pseudo-free psyche and a primary state-subordinate one in the pseudo-darkness of pseudo-bound soma.