 Kim (2016) argues that Chan’s version of moderate Confucian perfectionism does not leave enough that is distinctively Confucian. Filiality as traditionally understood is tightly associated with a patrilineal family/clan structure and with rituals that express gender hierarchy, which is why it is the greatest failure of filiality to fail to produce a male heir who will continue the male family line and who will conduct the ceremonies of ancestor worship. On the other hand, if one does leave enough that is distinctively and traditionally Confucian, Kim argues, one will not have a perfectionism that is moderate enough to be compatible with the pluralistic, diverse character of contemporary East Asian societies. Kim proposes the alternative he calls “public reason Confucianism,” which sets traditional Confucianism and the democratic values of popular sovereignty, political equality, and the right to political participation in dialogue with each other. The two sides must accommodate to each other. In practice, it seems that the most glaring inequalities accepted under traditional Confucianism, including gender inequalities that support women’s unequal standing as citizens, must go, though traditionalist Confucian associations retain a degree of autonomy to run their affairs and to retain “moderate inequalities” when these do not have vital public implications (2016, 164). One of the challenges Kim may have to address is whether in the dialogue between traditional Confucianism and democratic values there emerges something that is coherent and still distinctively Confucian. The previously discussed commentators on Confucianism and gender equality illustrate how it might be argued that gender equality is more compatible with Confucian values than they are usually thought to be. They also raise the issue of what “traditional” Confucianism really is, whether it is one thing, and whether it has not always been constantly changing. 