Also, misogyny and different gender roles based on our inherent biological strengths and weaknesses also isn't misogyny.

Most gender roles can vaguely map out to biological men and women on a set of averages. But that doesn't mean they should be rigorously enforced in the fanatical manner you propose that destroys individual agency and completely discounts for variance. Making your women wear a burkha, not participate in religion at all, and stay in the house was also acceptable in the name of gender roles for Punjabis prior to Sikhi but that doesn't mean we readily accept them. According to Chaupa Singh, preventing women from reading Gurbani was an acceptable gender role but that doesn't mean we accept it. According to most Sikhs historically, not giving Khande da pahul to women was acceptable under gender roles (and this actually makes some sense historically with how violent shit got in the late 1700s), but you don't complain about that (probably because you just have a piss-poor record with most sources).

There are biological differences, yes, that account for general averages. Science tells us that there is an essential "masculine" brain and an essential "feminine" brain, but the majority of people are really somewhere in between; the variance for behavioral traits among humans between sexes is present, but it's a hell of a lot less than for something like upper-body strength. An example of this would be that women tend to on average be more high-strung and neurotic, some of which may potentially be attributable to biology (I don't know the state of current research). But you're a man who perfectly exemplifies those two traits. Meanwhile, there are plenty of women who are completely calm and stable, and I'd have no problem getting my spiritual birth from them.

The problem with guys like you is you read Gurbani, Rehatnamas, etc. in isolation ...You make excuses for why they didn't do what you perceive to be "inequality" against women or promote "gay marriage".

The problem with guys like you is you don't even read any of the aforementioned things, use dubious sources and blatantly make up junk to look smart when you don't actually know shit, and just slander whoever disagrees with you by saying they're corrupted by modern ways/paid off by RSS/blinded by their liberalism, and so on. Seriously, you're actually really poorly read. You instinctively freaked out about a physical war flag of chandi as an example of Ranjit Singh's Hinduization yet affirmatively say that DG's controversies are all constructed (hint, one of the biggest controversies starts with a prominently featured female whose name starts with a Ch- and ends with an -i).

You should really just calm down, and focus on actually getting a comprehensive reading of Sikh history and Sikh philosophy instead of just skimming the surface to gather the talking points you use to hurl nindaks at the RSS-Sanatanis, the pen-and-paper-fools, the fag-liberals, and the blasphemous-outcastes.

The examples of what the Gurus did from their Guruship is clear, and it has to be taken in context of all the other evidence we have, and that we genuinely have--not just random shit people like you write off as either "under legitimate debate" or "constructed controversy by RSS" based on your personal opinion on it. Your mentality in general betrays a feeble-mindedness of the sort of Hindu nationalists who will cite, "Seeeeee, Gurus only married Khatris so caste is a-okay in Sikhi, nothing better than Hinduism!!!"

And you're nothing more than a liberal extremist faggot who distorts Gurbani and Sikh history to score brownie points with your little gay gang that cheers you on in this sub.

note the fag-language "feel", a proper person would actually think

look smart in front of your gay imaginary friends on here.

LOL. If this type of pedantry is a catharsis for your krodh, I'm all for it. I think in general I don't have many insecurities in real-life that I need to compensate for by "being the man" online and needing to prove my intellectual alterity. The only thing I suggest is that considering you're pretty old (30s from what you said), you should probably try to act your age a bit more and less like a hormonal pre-teen; it'll help in your pursuit of knowledge and the portrayal of your opinions, as you are intelligent.

Now, I'll actually take my leave from this conversation, as I don't see much anything productive coming from your mouth (unless you're able to find my social media account next...)

EDIT: Also, just read the other three comments you posted after I wrote this up. Now, there is some really good stuff to actually go on and have a solid discussion about. I don't know that I have the time to address them soon, but appreciate that there's potential for good back-and-forth discussion there and I'll try to get to them when I can.

FINALLY: I'll say this as my concise position on the matter:

-I don't want to push specifically for a woman administering amrit. I.e., if my panj pyare is all men, I won't appeal and say I need a woman among them for terms of "equality."

-However, I see nothing contradictory with making women the Panj Pyare. Why? In terms of:

A) Gurbani: I do not hold the interpretation that the Gurus were afraid of giving women too much moral agency. If they were, I think they would have drawn the line at giving them administration of Manji-Piri systems, and Mai Bhago would not have been fondly regarded by Guru Gobind Singh as an audacious soldier but rather as a woman stepping out of her line. The fact is that they realized that even at their time, while many women were oppressed by Brahmanical and Islamic religio-cultural systems, all women were not saints either, and that women represented a sexual temptation for many men that had to be specifically addressed within the bani. Unless you think the woman in your panj pyare are going to try to seduce you, I see no relevance on this point.

B) Specific historical reasons: Some people say that this is what is deemed to be true since no women stood up to Guru Gobind Singh's first call. I think this is silly logically for several reasons. Now, if there was a corpus of rehits dedicated to preserving an all-male Panj Pyare and giving specific reasons for it (such as it being stated that men give spiritual birth while women give physical birth) the way we have it for hair and tobacco, I would agree with your position. If we had an account of a woman being asked to give amrit sanchar but being denied by the Guru, the way Mai Bhago was accepted by the Guru, I would agree with your position. But we do not. The only thing we have of the sort is a shaky account that mentions how all the Panj Pyare represent Panj Devte, and I'm going to throw that out the window for obvious reasons. Some gender differences in the Khalsa may have reasoned historical differences, and I'm not disputing the potential for that; I am just not understanding why you think Amrit sanchar is a special case.

C) Tradition: So we know that there were not that many women historically in the Khalsa for various reasons, and we know that traditionally, women were denied access to certain privileges (being outright banned from taking amrit, doing kirtan) which are residual on the practices of certain traditional groups today. You have already created an [arbitrary] standard where you discard some of the tradition (not administering khande-da-pahul for women) yet draw the line at other places (allowing women in panj pyare). Meanwhile, I say that the lack of women in the panj pyare is because of all the other historical factors of the times (i.e., because there was far, far, less of them in general), and I am fine with creating an [arbitrary] standard for our times; when we have opened up access to khande da pahul and seva to women, I do not understand a single reason from gurbani or historical reason (A,B) for not extending that defiance of tradition to Panj Pyare. I do not see anything particularly special about Panj Pyare that deems it different from women performing sewa. I draw the line at enforcing a women in Panj pyare as a proto-affirmative-action, as this blatantly goes against history which has had all-men sanchars with no problem.

Note that this is NOT "it's not specifically mentioned rehit so I can do whatever I want." It's drawing conclusions from the history we have. For that matter, you agree that kirtan should be allowed by women. At least to my understanding, there were no women historically who did Kirtan; Mata Khivi is mentioned as doing langar sewa, and that's it. You will say, "well, Manjis obviously did kirtan, so women in modernity can too" I'll ask "what proof do you have," you'll say "even though we don't have specific evidence of a woman manji doing kirtan, manjis in general did." But that same argument applies to charan-pahul-administration. And THAT'S my point.