Gender equality seems like an untestable hypothesis

If rights mean anything at all, there can be no "reasonable exception" to equal rights.

I think I agree on the concept of natural rights. What I'm getting at more is the "right to be treated equally" which seems a lot more tenuous. Usually when someone says they are for equal rights, they aren't just talking about natural rights. For example, being offered a job isn't a natural right. However, if someone started discriminating when hiring based on sex or race or other protected criteria, we would treat that as a rights violation. But there are cases when discriminating makes sense, like not letting a blind person drive a car. So these aren't reasonable exceptions to natural rights, but reasonable exceptions to protections that the government provides on top of natural rights.

Rights aren't determined by accountants

I'm also not sure universal healthcare is a natural right, it depends on what the system actually achieves and if it actually improves health outcomes. It can be a good thing if designed well, but the financial costs are not irrelevant since people are taxed to fund it.

I've not seen an answer to my question.

For example, being offered a job isn't a natural right. However, if someone started discriminating when hiring based on sex or race or other protected criteria, we would treat that as a rights violation.

I'd say that is appropriate. Equal employment laws are based on natural rights. Denying work based on identity is a violation of a person's fundamental freedom and the right to sustain their life.

But there are cases when discriminating makes sense, like not letting a blind person drive a car.

I think youre equivocating a bit. "Descrimination" is the unjust, unfair treatment of a person because of characteristics like race, disability, etc. It is not unfair to disqualify an applicant that cannot perform the essential functions of a job.

I'm also not sure universal healthcare is a natural right, it depends on what the system actually achieves and if it actually improves health outcomes. It can be a good thing if designed well, but the financial costs are not irrelevant since people are taxed to fund it.

I would argue universal healthcare would be closely tied to natural rights, but that is another debate. Regardless, whether it is viewed as a natural right or a government provided entitlement, I dont think you can reasonably justify disallowing crucial care because bodies with ovaries cost more to care for. If government is going to be involved, then it should handle essential care for everyone. After all, women are taxpayers too.

"Descrimination" is the unjust, unfair treatment of a person because of characteristics like race, disability, etc. It is not unfair to disqualify an applicant that cannot perform the essential functions of a job.

The "unfair" qualifier is what makes this come down to technicalities. To determine whether a distinction based on gender is "fair" or not has to be judged on a case by case basis. Some places want to only hire women because men are seen as more likely to be unsafe. Is that unfair? Cause it has to do with probability that someone won't perform the essential functions of their job. I think it would depend on the specific situation, but there are some hypothetical scenarios where it might be fair. Let's say we use utilitarianism (it might not be the optimal tie-breaker but we need to draw the line somehow); on a utilitarian basis we would probably have gender equality in some cases but not in other cases. Of course because the cases where we treat men and women differently are seen as reasonable, then we would probably retroactively define gender equality to match whatever decision we made.

Like, if someone convinced you we should favor men or women for a specific job (could be niche), would you say that in a specific case we were violating gender equality, or would you say that because it's reasonable it doesn't violate gender equality at all? It's the ex-post-facto redefining that people often do that makes this fraught.

I dont think you can reasonably justify disallowing crucial care because bodies with ovaries cost more to care for. If government is going to be involved, then it should handle essential care for everyone. After all, women are taxpayers too.

Yes but the point is that care for women would get more care for some things and men more care for other things. Like screening for cancers that women are much more likely to get or vice versa. The principle you're saying is whether the care is "essential," but if that differs based on gender, why could other essential rights not vary based on gender? Like a sexist would probably say people should have "essential" freedoms but those differ between men and women.

Really, I would be thrilled if there was a way to define gender equality to make it clear what violates it or not, but I think any defensible version of it is going to end up along the lines of "we should treat people equally, except in cases when we shouldn't." It's not really an issue that can be resolved on an outside view without the details of each case in mind.

Some places want to only hire women because men are seen as more likely to be unsafe. Is that unfair? Cause it has to do with probability that someone won't perform the essential functions of their job.

What are you talking about here? Do you have specifics?

Like, if someone convinced you we should favor men or women for a specific job (could be niche), would you say that in a specific case we were violating gender equality, or would you say that because it's reasonable it doesn't violate gender equality at all?

Do you have something specific in mind?

The principle you're saying is whether the care is "essential," but if that differs based on gender, why could other essential rights not vary based on gender?

Your portrayal of essential care as suggestive of different rights for men and women does not follow. If men and women both have access to the same level of care (life sustaining, preventitive care, basic well-being management, etc.) then they are being treated equally.

What are you talking about here? Do you have specifics?

Men pay more for car insurance. A startup faced legal challenges after hiring only female drivers. But each of these is defended by statistics by the respective groups doing the discriminating. I'm sure there are people who would say "I support gender equality, but this is an exception because the discrimination is justified." In which case if gender equality can have exceptions it's not really a guiding principle.

If men and women both have access to the same level of care (life sustaining, preventitive care, basic well-being management, etc.) then they are being treated equally.

Don't want to come across as just talking in circles, so if I understand your point, men and women have the same basic rights but those rights are achieved in different ways because they are different. I agree, but I think you could find plenty of die-hard sexists whose beliefs could be fit into a similar framework. For example, "men and women are entitled t the same level of fairness, but it's fair for men to work and women to stay at home. But because they're both being treated fairly, they're being treated equally." In either case, the right (care/fairness) is the same but the mechanism is different. I think gender equality is generally going further than this though, that in some cases, the mechanism needs to be equal. I think women's healthcare and men's healthcare can be different yet equal, but some sexist would probably say that women working at home and men entering the workforce are similarly different yet equal. The principle isn't the difference so much as the application of it.

Gender equality is difficult in some countries because of cultural norms. But it is recognized as social Justice.

Well, 'complete gender equality isn't likely to come about I think.

Unless we genetically eliminate there being two sexes from humanity.

. . Course there's always Isims and physical differences between humans.

Could make all humans clones I suppose, but there's still differences in wealth and positions of leadership. Could eliminate those as well I suppose, HA. Hahahahaha. . . Heh. .

I think a lot of people just want more 'general equality.

Right to vote for instance.

Modern war and guns make women serving in military more possible.

Course. . . As a 'society it can damage population creation to risk your women in war or careers. Maybe.

Pregnancy a different kind of sacrifice.

Questions of who has custody rights.

I usually think of sexism as false or overblown belief and/or unfair action in regards to sex.

Sexist, Racist, fuzzy vague words.

There were women who opposed Suffrage I have heard. Though I've never looked into the details of why.

America is pretty big on Individualism, too much so, some people argue.

"gender equality in cases when it makes sense"

Runs into the difficulty of different values and culture, I expect.

"gender equality in cases when it makes sense"

Runs into the difficulty of different values and culture, I expect.

I agree. I wish there were an elegant definition of gender equality we could easily use to decide the right policies rather than having to do it on a case by case basis, but unfortunately I think that is very difficult to come by. Of course, different values and culture are already an issue since some people would say they don't value equality at all. The question is whether it can be solved as an absolute or if it depends on the circumstances, and I think it depends.

Consent seems a decent baseline.

Knowing, Free of Coercion, Ongoing, Can be Withdrawn.

Unfortunately, taxes are a thing, conscription, legal contracts.

But if the women in a country all said they 'wanted to be burned after their husband died. . I suppose one would accept it, even 'with the big difference in values.

On a different hand, I vaguely remember hearing about cases where child abuse is claimed, where the child is named Hitler or taught Nazi Ideology or something.

Still, I think Consent would be the way to go about it. If people have different values, they have different values.

'Ideally give people a way to migrate to different locations or countries that match their values.

The Pledge of Allegiance in school irritates me.

I often think a country would be better off with Wards/Guests?, Civilians, and Citizens. Maybe some other identifiers as well.

But as always I'm not for 'too much immigration.

Even in America Trump is abolishing LGBT rights.