In case you haven't noticed, but things (as in anything you care to mention, aside from the "religious")are indicated as testable and incontrovertible via names, rules, techniques, definitions & history
hence philosophy that never makes the grade to application paints sad little portraits like your associate
You find this interesting trend in the vedas with the words "purusa" being a general guideline for "male" and prakrti being a general guideline for female .... The idea is that god is the only complete enjoyer (purusa) and everything else, including the universe and the other living entities, are enjoyed by him (prakrti). However the living entity is also sometimes termed purusa when it comes to the material world in a spirit of imitating god . IOW "purusa" has a two fold meaning - one being a title of god and the other being a title for a living entity caught up to a greater or lesser extent in material conditions (regardless of whether they happen to be in a male or female body) - so you find that it is not only god that is linguistically referred to as a "he", but also the living entity in illusion.
That's why I stuck religion in there. Anyway that horse has been whipped to death with both sides no closer than they were before but each of their respective resolves has been strengthened thanks to the other guy. Time for a change.