In the closing moments of Wagner's Parsifal, as knights, young men and boys sing that the Savior has been saved, Kundry, the opera's only female character, dies without explanation. Her death is not a punishment or consequence of punishment, as is Elsa's death at Lohengrin's departure. Her death is not an act of self-sacrifice; she does not die for the sake of males, as does Brunhilde. Rather, I suggest, her death is a representation of a closure and completion of a valuable masculine world, in which, like a gay marriage, women are excluded but not thereby degraded or used. In this slideshow talk, I first ask after the proper relation between gender and biological sex for men, where gender-in this case, masculinity-is what is socially made of, layered over, imposed upon, or (as some social constructionist would have it) what creates biological sex-in this case, maleness; and where man or the manly is the combination and phenomenological presentation of the male and the masculine. I suggest that the male and the masculine are properly far more closely aligned and that biological sexuality, in the sense of genetically based sexuality, plays a more significant role in manliness than are related gender and biological sex in most stripes of feminism. In addition, I argue, on the one hand, against Foucault and his followers' view that the body is at most a blank slate in the make up of gender and sexuality, and, on the other, against natural law interpretations of biological sex. Nature does not oblige, but nature does hint. Biological sex provides not a neutral, but a suggestive substrate for gender. Second, I ask whether there is something morally objectionable, specifically whether there is something sexist, in the creation, from the suggestive materials provided by biological sex, of a manidentified man, that is, a man whose central self-conscious identification is as a masculinely male man and whose private moral and erotic concerns and energies are directed toward men with a similar identification. Further, I ask whether one could build a morally non-objectionable separate world of such men in essential and closed relations to each other. Is male separatism, in some forms, morally acceptable? I suggest that such people and structures are not patently immoral and indeed can be found lurking in admirable