The argument that Bhante Sujato holds in this blog post is really weird, the sutta is AN 5.230:
"Monks, there are these five dangers of a black snake. What five? It is aggressive, bears grudges, has terrible poison, is fork-tongued, and betrays friends.
Just so, monks, there are five dangers of a woman. What five? She is aggressive, bears grudges, has terrible poison, is fork-tongued, and betrays friends. Herein, monks, a woman’s terrible poison is this – generally, a woman has keen lust. A woman’s forked tongue is this – generally, a woman uses back-biting speech. A woman’s betrayal of friends is this – generally, a woman commits adultery."
His argument starts like this: "And no, I don’t think this was really spoken by the Buddha. Deal with it. What I’m interested in is to subject this text to the same elementary standard that the Buddha himself insisted on, and that we would apply to any other truth claims: does it stack up against the evidence? I assume it doesn’t, but I’d like to see the proof."
So by using this criteria we should subject all the Tipitika to the same standard, in other words if there is evidence the Buddha said it if not he didnt.
So lets start:
Life is suffering. Has anyone know of empirical tests preferably from reputable universities that prove this point? No? Well then he didnt say it. It could be a late insert due to polical tensions between the happy go lucky people who really like enjoying life and the sad people who dont. After all havent we all felt joy in our life?
MN 115 "engaging in mental misconduct might on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body,after death, reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell" hmm.. mental misconduct that implies that something invisible is happing no? Any empirical evidence that thought even exist? Yes?, welll then any empirical evidence that hell exists? Rebirth? The Jhanas? etc. etc. By this method we will be left with what kind of Dhamma?
The we have: "Obviously, such psychological traits are heavily conditioned by culture..", nowhere in the Sutta the Buddha mentions this, as a matter of fact all the teachings of the Buddha have at least the pretense of universality, had the Buddha meant that only women of India of that era have those traits one would have thought he would have said so, I dont see what is so obvious about considering this characteristics as cultural, does this mean that there are cultures where we dont see this?
0) a woman has keen lust
2) a woman uses back-biting speech
3) bear grudges
4) is adulterous
And then he refferences the studies that surely dont prove that women dont have this characteristics but that men have them as well maybe even in a higher degree.
But we seem to forget that this is not what the Sutta says, the Sutta does not say women are more lusty than men or more aggressive or more adulterous, etc. Nor does the Buddha say not on this Sutta nor elswhere that men dont have those treats, he is simlpy stating that women have those traits, this is a text book straw man argument.
Even if the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, I will use all my human firmness, human persistence and human striving. There will be no relaxing my persistence until I am the first of my generation to attain full awakening in this lifetime. ed. AN 2.5