Henry has written a response to another silly set of definitions.
It is simply that every person, irrespective of gender, should be permitted to serve in the church as they are called and gifted by God. My egalitarian position says nothing whatsoever about how many men or women will or will not possess what gifts and what calling. That is precisely what I reject. I do not think they are ontologically and functionally equal. I just don’t believe that the offices of the church are necessarily tied to such function and ontology, nor do I think that each man and each woman can be defined solely as “man” or “woman.” There are an abundance of other differences.
The original post starts ok but descends (as complementarians so often do) into a silly caricature of the egalitarian position.
While I like Henry's response my position is not quite the same. It depends on what is meant by "ontologically and functionally equal".
I do not believe that the female/male continuum should be connected in any way to an understanding of a persons call and gifting by God to serve in the Church. Again the call and gifting by God to serve in the Church is what should be tested (thoroughly) by which I do not include an inspection of that persons genitals.