Yes, it turns out if you want to use the mechanisms of the legal system to try to counter the marginalization of any group by the whole system, it has to recognize them in law and provide a method for distinguishing them in practice.

But, once you have some method of distinguishing them, the people that want to strengthen hierarchical structures will use that to identify them and (further) marginalize them.

This is true whether you are talking about chromosomal properties, internal anatomy, external anatomy (not limited to genital shape, but also melanin quantity and distribution), gender-assigned-at-birth, current gendered behavior, religious practices or associations, etc.

Still legal recognition might be the best way to reduce harm until we can achieve a future where the category or distinguishing characteristics no longer make one a target of (extra-judicial) marginalization.

I do think men getting conscripted because they’re men in kinda bullshit.

Reading the comments I’m surprised how many people don’t know about them.

It might be less about not knowing about gender disparity, and more about wanting to get rid of that too.

• global retirement age is bullshit anyway; tell me that someone that worked 50 years in a coal mine (and survived somehow) should retire at the same age that someone that worked in an office. Gender is not needed there
• mandatory conscription is already a dicy subject; if one assume it makes sense, making it men-only doesn't. No need for gender disparity here either; plenty of military roles that can be done without being a beefcake
• many countries are actually looking into extending paternal leaves because they finally got that both parents are important to raise a child
• physical requirements should be physical requirements. If they exist, they should match the job requirements. Having different bar of entry because of gender makes no sense. If the job is lifting iron all day, and you can lift iron all day, that's all that matters.
• parity requirements related to gender exists to curb all the disparity that's ingrained in society because we decided to make men and women a different thing. remove the difference, remove the need to "make amend with a mandatory quota"
• same as previous point
• and same as previous previous point

The only need to keep distinguishing gender for legal stuff is because we keep the "women are lesser than men" mentality, coupled with "women needs protection".

Guess what: there isn't a gender that is "less" than the other, and everyone needs protection. Sounds like an equality thing to me, where genders only get in the way.

I think gender mixed prisons might be considered problematic as well.

You act like there's no option to create GENDER EQUALITY, and instead the only option is to remove those laws.

Maternal and paternal leave also applies in adoptions and surrogate births so it is gender based.

Fr