That's a flawed argument that has no coherent cause-and-effect chain. "Legally" is the only thing that matters and can be regulated in any tangible way. You ca

That's a flawed argument that has no coherent cause-and-effect chain. "Legally" is the only thing that matters and can be regulated in any tangible way. You cannot and should not enforce artificial constraints on legal and humane social trends, because unequal outcomes are the result of free will and a free market -- yet the prevailing narrative now essentially equates lack of equal outcome in professional fields to human rights violations, and that's a terrible thing to do. It is neither the government's nor anyone else's obligation to make certain people (of both genders) who are not hardworking, intelligent or ruthless enough have the same outcome as those who do achieve great things due to those and other factors specific to them (this includes such simple things as requesting/demanding higher pay, which in itself requires certain characteristics present in a larger quantity in men due to being inherently aggressive creatures biologically). This kind of argument reminds me of a comparison I heard a while back between the left and right: the left believe humanity is inherently nurturing, while the right believe humanity is inherently competitive. Both are true, but the left-aligned media is currently pushing the former at the expense of the latter, resulting in the right-aligned media going hyperpartisan as well. Meanwhile, they're forgetting that the truth of competition (ruthless, primal competition that's masked by modern civility) has always and will always remain an inseparable part of humanity, resulting in all sorts of inequalities and differences in outcome based on human input, in the same way my Macbook could have produced the Evernote app had I been the one with the idea and skills and foresight to create it at the right time rather than someone else.