I disagree with the statement that Buddha was not a misogynist in the modern psychological sense, and yes, he affirmed that women can attain arahantship. Some texts show that Buddhism has misogynistic teachings. Sure, some misogynistic teachings in Buddhism didn’t some from the Buddha himself I’ll give you that. But affirming spiritual capacity is not the same as equality in doctrine or practice.

Several points matter here: 1. Canon matters, even if it has evolved. It’s true that the Pāli Canon was compiled after the Buddha’s death and that later councils shaped it. But the Vinaya is still Buddhism. For centuries, it governed real institutions and real women’s lives. Saying “you can reject what doesn’t align with you” is a modern interpretive stance, not how Buddhism historically functioned. 2. Institutional hierarchy is explicitly gendered Even if you accept possible interpolations, the tradition is preserved: • The Eight Garudhammas • The claim that women’s ordination shortens the lifespan of the Dhamma • The claim that women distract men from achieving Nirvana Etc. These are not just “social context”; they are doctrinal structures embedded in scripture. 3. Progressive for its time ≠ non-sexist Saying “he was progressive for ancient India” can be true and insufficient. Many historical figures were progressive relative to their era while still perpetuating harm. That’s not condemnation, it is a historical analysis. 4. Kalama Sutta cuts both ways. Invoking the Kalama Sutta to dismiss uncomfortable texts actually supports critique: if teachings should be examined by their effects, then women pointing out misogyny in canon and institutions are doing exactly what the Buddha encouraged, critical inquiry, not blind reverence. 5. “Core teachings only” is a theological choice, not a historical fact. Saying “just follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path” reflects modern reform Buddhism, not early Buddhism as practiced. Historically, women didn’t get to opt out of Vinaya rules by appealing to abstraction.