As much as I admire Buddhism, one thing that's been a snag for me is the assumption that all Buddhas are male. Among the 32 characteristics of a Buddha is the "well-retracted male organ". This is illustrated, for instance, in the Devadatta chapter of the Lotus Sutra, where the Dragon princess instantly becomes a Buddha but in doing so necessarily assumes a male form. Likewise, Amitabha's 35th vow promises that women who aspire to be reborn in the Pure Land will do so as men. Sometimes these passages are cited as evidence of equality in Buddhism but IMO they really argue the opposite, that is, while women may become Buddhas, and attain Buddhahood in this life, they must do so as men.   I am aware of some countervailing tendencies, e.g. the existence of female Buddhas in the Vajrayana tradition, and the feminization of Guan Yin in the Sinosphere, but I feel like these don't really rub away what seems to me a misogynistic substrate.   I want to be wrong about this, I really do, and if someone can convince me, I would be grateful. Since I am particularly attracted to the Pure Land tradition, if someone can argue from within the view of that school that would be a bonus.