You don't need equality of outcomes -- you just need neither group, and in fact, no person (even if they do not fit the group norm) to have objectively bad outc

You don't need equality of outcomes -- you just need neither group, and in fact, no person (even if they do not fit the group norm) to have objectively bad outcomes. For example, in an hypothetical world where women have a massive preference for raising children, and men have a massive preference for looking at spreadsheets entering boring numbers into them, you would want women to look after children, and men to look after spreadsheets, and neither to be more likely than the other to live in poverty, not have enough to eat, commit suicide, be killed by an intimate partner, or die at 50 of alcohol abuse. (I intentionally chose a variety of gender-linked outcomes in our world -- they're not all cases where women have the bad outcome.) Yes, in order to not get some people to be massively likelier to live in poverty or suffer from depression than some others, you need to treat people unequally. I don't think that's a bad thing. If (and I reckon that's a big if) the main reason women are more likely to live in poverty is them making less money than men, and the main reason they make less money is they choose different careers, then it follows that the moral thing to do is to get them to choose masculine careers, by essentially any means possible. I think there's a lot of room for debate at all points of that argument, though. (On the reasons for the inequality -- but also on what the best way to address those reasons is)