It is just one logic. Both masculine and feminine logic are self-contradictory, because existence can never be fully explained. That which is outside of our "symbolic order" i.e. which we cannot verbalize, is "The Real".
The self-contradiction of masculine logic is precisely that it is universal, so something must be excluded. i.e. "All swans are white. Those which are not white, are aberrations, not true swans".
The self-contradiction of feminine logic is precisely the opposite, "Not all swans are white. But no swans are not white". i.e., "I don't accept a universalizing claim, but I cannot find anything outside the existing universal order"
That example is very simple for the sake of clarity. To give a better example
Masc logic: "Humans are inherently capitalist. All societies which were not capitalist were deformed, aberations against human nature". Universality with one exception.
Fem logic: "Not all humans are inherently capitalist. There are no societies which override the capitalist order". i.e., "We cannot make universal claims. Precisely because of this, there is no alternate universe except for this one".
I like this because, there is an "universal function", which nobody truly lives up to, but which nobody lives outside of.
Another good example Zizek gives is "The Undead", from horror movies. i.e. "If you are not Alive, you are Dead. But if you are not Dead, you are not necessarily Alive. You can be Not-Dead. Or the Undead. To "The Living", they are still part of The Dead. They are just The Dead which refuses to fully die. The walking representation of Death.
So masculine logic would say "Everyone who is not Alive, is Dead. Except for the Undead, who are an aberration".
Feminine logic would say, "Not everyone who is Not Alive is Dead, but there is no-one who is Not Alive, who is Not Dead." i.e., no alternative universal vision of life vs death is proposed.
We instead get this tension, a strata caught in the middle, the Undead, who contradict the the existing universality of Alive vs Dead, but who still exist inside of it, and paradoxically, accept that same universality in practice.
I hope that makes sense! I am not saying it's "true" but it's interesting (to me).
No bluff, I would do it.