And what do you make of current “theologians” and “scholars” who are proposing it was man and wife … or at least male and female?
First, go read the passage in question from Luke 24:10-35, then come back.
Strictly speaking, it might be possible that one of the disciples was a woman, given that only Cleopas was named. We do not know the name of the second disciple. Such speculation depends, however, on Jesus’ using the word men in his reproach “O foolish men” in its general application to mankind. However, when the passage is read in context, it appears that such a reading is implausible.
Note the general tone: The disciples are discussing the news, told them by the women, that Jesus’ tomb was empty. They tell the stranger, who was Jesus incognito, “Some women of our company amazed us” and remark that the women’s story had been confirmed. The drift of the tale is a “she said, we doubt”-tone that makes it difficult to believe that one of the Emmaus road disciples was also a woman.
It seems likely that this is another case where an inclusivist reading is being forced upon the passage in an effort to involve women. By doing so, the inclusivists ignore the fact that Christ had already revealed his Resurrection to his female disciples and that those women are depicted as having tried unsuccessfully to convince unbelieving men that the Resurrection had occurred.