If men and women are the same thing with slightly different parts, then gender neutral laws make sense.

If men and women have meaningful differences then it makes sense to have gendered laws.

I think pandora's box is open never to be shut again on the conversation if we're the same or different.

> If men and women are the same thing with slightly different parts, then gender neutral laws make sense.

> If men and women have meaningful differences then it makes sense to have gendered laws.

This framing of the issue puts the discussion down an awkward rhetorical path that is difficult to recover from.

What if it doesn't matter whether someone looks or acts different; but it matters how society treats them and the outcomes that they face.

Black chess pieces and white chess pieces are superficially, trivially distinct. Yet, the player with the white pieces wins 52% to 56% of the time.

I'm calling it out here because it's a typical technocratic bad-faith argument that I'm personally tired of hearing.

Do you have any examples of laws that couldn't just be thought out better and anchor their reasoning more accurately and neutrally? Falling back to using gender often just feels like a quick hack.

Universal human rights are inalienable.

Distinction is always going to be less effective than universally agreed declaration. We can declare: all human beings have equal rights.

Pandora's box is the universality aspect, which must be manifest by those agreeing to declare the nature of ones rights in respect to others rights, both for oneself and for others. This is the reason a distinction-based legal position is poor policy.

We cannot distinguish between a man and a woman if we are agreeing to the universality of their equal human rights.

The we part is the difficult part, apropos pandora's boxes. But ultimately, universality is very empowering to the individual.

of course they have more differences than that.

no controversy of this in chimps.

no magical evolutionary moment when they became the same in humans.

biologists know this. sociologists start with an unfounded null assumption.

the desired outcome seems to be that men and women are the same in situations where being a man is beneficial. In situations where being a woman is beneficial that goes away. For example 80% of healthcare workers are women, it is the biggest?(or close to) industry in the USA but I have never once seen someone pushing to correct that imbalance.

I don’t even get how I am supposed to hold my partner to the same standards I would hold a close male friend/family member. If I knew a dude who freaked out and yelled/sobbed several times a month over something inane like where to get dinner I would drop them immediately. I have found just using the old adage “happy wife happy life” is most effective, but isn’t that inherently disrespectful? Like “I can’t reason with this person but if I upset them it’s gonna go poorly for me so I better let them have their way!”. The only way my relationship survives is if I have a bit of internalized misogyny and hold her to a different standard than I do myself or another man.

I'm not sure if it's about same or universal, someone else already said it's about universal human rights that all humans must agree to demonstrate a practice of care with and towards each other.

Gosh, this thread is so full of sweeping takes. Different or equal in what regard? Income? Violent behavior? Or culinary skills? Maybe we should not codify stereotypes into law...

I would argue the opposite. Women are born with something that (most) Men want. That puts them at a natural advantage.