Hey Hermes,

Thank you for your great comments, and I agree with a lot of them. I should probably clarify a few things:

Regarding the differences between sex and gender, I agree with the academic references you've provided. Sex refers to biology and anatomy (including the presence of misassignment). Gender is the social construct, where masculinity and femininity can be subjectively weaponized. If this came across poorly in the article, I may need to write a follow-up piece that specifically hones in on the semantic/functional delineation of sex vs. gender.

The reason I prefer "nutric" over "positive" is that "positive" is too generic. I wanted something that could serve as a direct antonym for "toxic" -- and "positive" is more of a symmetrical antonym for "negative." So if we were using the term "negative masculinity," then "positive masculinity" would sound more appropriate. But we're trying to dismantle "toxic" masculinity -- so, for now, "nutric" is the most apt antonym that I can think of.

To your point about about men being able to display masculine, feminine, hybrid, or neutral personality traits without losing the distinction between what is considered "masculine" or "feminine" -- yes, I agree with some of what you're saying there. I guess I'd just probe a little further: why do we necessarily need to rely on fixed, traditionalistic definitions of "masculinity" and "femininity"? Is it possible to modify those descriptors without overhauling their complementary nature entirely?