First off, crossie's a big boy (another ambiguous, gender-linked phrase!) and he can and did post his own review.
Secondly, you seem to be assuming that a woman cannot also be a man. Psychologists have long known that a person can exhibit both masculine and feminine traits, to various extents. Gender primarily represents the evaluation of a person's actions by others who share a common understanding of what it means to be, say, a man, or a woman — an understanding which differs between social groups, which has often changed over time, and which may be non-exclusive.
In other words, if a person exhibited the traits implied by "man up", they could be called a man, regardless of their own beliefs - their gender identity - and regardless of whether the evaluating group, or a different group, would [also] identify that person as a woman. Because gender is, ultimately, a matter of opinion, it cannot be objectively wrong to call someone a "man", a "woman", both, or neither.
If you eliminate the personality traits associated with masculinity and femininity, the terms "man" and "woman" become meaningless, which means there is nothing to be offended by. Conversely, if the terms do matter, they must mean something, i.e. that some people "act like a man" and others don't. Offense can then arise — but only if a person does act like a man/woman, yet is not recognized as such.
First off, crossie's a big boy (another ambiguous, gender-linked phrase!) and he can and did post his own review.
Secondly, you seem to be assuming that a woman cannot also be a man. Psychologists have long known that a person can exhibit both masculine and feminine traits, to various extents. Gender primarily represents the evaluation of a person's actions by others who share a common understanding of what it means to be, say, a man, or a woman — an understanding which differs between social groups, which has often changed over time, and which may be non-exclusive.
In other words, if a person exhibited the traits implied by "man up", they could be called a man, regardless of their own beliefs - their gender identity - and regardless of whether the evaluating group, or a different group, would [also] identify that person as a woman. Because gender is, ultimately, a matter of opinion, it cannot be objectively wrong to call someone a "man", a "woman", both, or neither.
If you eliminate the personality traits associated with masculinity and femininity, the terms "man" and "woman" become meaningless, which means there is nothing to be offended by. Conversely, if the terms do matter, they must mean something, i.e. that some people "act like a man" and others don't. Offense can then arise — but only if a person does act like a man/woman, yet is not recognized as such.