People use inequality of outcomes as evidence of prejudice and forbid explanations other than inequality of opportunity or treatment as thoughtcrime. They argue

People use inequality of outcomes as evidence of prejudice and forbid explanations other than inequality of opportunity or treatment as thoughtcrime. They argue for equality of outcomes in aggregate (ie in a distribution, when comparing different groups broken up by colour or sex or gender or whatever) by criticizing inequal outcomes as evidence of wrongness, a problem needing fixing. To be sure, I think difference in outcomes in aggregate is a strong signal of unfairness in the system. But the mechanism of the critique, and its employment of thoughtcrime punishment, and ideologues' apparent complete lack of concern for inverted power situations (like when girls do better in school than boys) make me deeply suspicious of such people's motivations.