1/2. The legislators are equal before the law, because in theory, everyone has the right to become a legislator.

>But you yourself are opposed to this, remember? You think you should be able to single out sub-set A of the population for privileges and benefits to which all not-A are not entitled.

3. No, you see, this is why we have been going around in circles for the last few posts. This is what you're not getting, that's not what I'm saying.

All not-A would be entitled to anything that A are entitled to, the difference is that all not-A would not be able to claim this.

All men and infertile women should be entitled to claim maternity leave when they give birth. Will they ever give birth? No, but that doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to it by law.

Plus, there is a distinction between protection under the law and benefits from government institutions.

4. That doesn't apply to every single private relationship and no I won't define which ones it does or does not apply to, that's a ridiculous tangent to start going on.

Your last assertion is just ridiculous, so I won't respond to it. What I will note is that you've been building straw men and taking them apart for pages now, but have not actually specified what it is you're envisioning. So go on, what's a better system?

> The legislators are equal before the law, because in theory, everyone has the right to become a legislator.

Incorrect. *Anyone*, not *everyone*, has the right in theory to become a legislator. The legislature intrinsically involves dividing the population into two unequal classes - the ruling class of power “haves” who claim a prerogative to use institutionalised violence to carry their will into effect as against everyone else, and those power “have-notes” who are to be subject to this and denied the equal right to use force defend themselves against the initiation of aggression by the legislators and their agents.

This difficulty is not evaded by your response. Therefore you are not in favour of equality before the law and your whole argument crumbles.

3. "\All not-A would be entitled to anything that A are entitled to, the difference is that all not-A would not be able to claim this."

If not-A can't claim it on the ground that they don't qualify, and can never possibly qualify, then they're not entitled to it, are they? And can never be. Is that honestly the best you can do?

But even taking your argument at face value, then there's no reason in principle why males should not be granted a particular privilege or benefit, for which the qualification is an attribute of maleness, and for which females are intrinsically disqualified. e.g. all persons who beget a child are entitled to certain privileges. According to your logic, all females “would” be entitled to it, it’s just that they can’t claim it. Sorry. Doesn’t make sense. And argues *against* equality before the law, not in favour of it.

> Plus, there is a distinction between protection under the law and benefits from government institutions.

Yes I know there is but how can you have equality in both? They are mutually inconsistent, that's the whole point.

>4. That doesn't apply to every single private relationship and no I won't define which ones it does or does not apply to, that's a ridiculous tangent to start going on.

It’s the other way around - the concept of banning discrimination is ridiculous in the first place because a) all human action intrinsically involves discrimination, b) you can show no reason why some discrimination should be arbitrarily persecuted, and c) those with the privilege to decide will be unequal vis-à-vis everyone else. Result – complete failure of your argument to get to square one.

" you've been building straw men and taking them apart for pages now, but have not actually specified what it is you're envisioning.

Sorry, not good enough.

You haven't shown that equality of the sexes is a meaningful, possible, or ethical goal of policy; and I’ve shown that it’s not.

It's not "ridiculous" to point out that you are arguing for the use of aggressive force to achieve ends that are illogical and impossible, that you are completely unable to defend without self-contradiction, and that amount to nothing more than an abuse and *unequality* of arbitrary power.

Therefore I've been refuting your illogic with sound arguments, not building straw men.

“So go on, what's a better system?”

Put it this way - what would you replace slavery with? With not-slavery, right?. What would you replace rape with? With either consensual sex, or none at all, right?

What should we replace institutionalized coercion with? A better system than instituionalised coercion is to respect voluntary relations, and to recognise that majority opinion does not make oppression of minorities okay. If the women in question are being coerced into something, we are all agreed that coercion is justified to remedy the problem. But if they're not, then their voluntary social relations are none of your business - and certainly no warrant for the use of force against anyone else.

So is pedophilia ok? Whilst we're not intervening in peoples' private relationships.

Is discriminating against children okay in terms of denying them the vote and other political and civil rights?

Everyone always agrees that children must form a separate case in the nature of things, because they start out as babies so there's no other option than for other people to make decisions on their behalf.

But treating everyone like children cannot form the basis of a theory of government, because we are not children in the care of our parent the state. That is precisely the objection to paternalistic government, and it seems to blow hot and cold to criticise it in traditional patriarchal society but affirm the paternalistic and anti-liberty tenets of it all over again in political feminism.

You still haven't establised the case for aggression, paternalism and inequality under law, I suspect that deep down you don't really agree with them yourself.

And you just wrote 3 paragraphs without answering my question.

If there is an adult having sex with a 12-year-old, should that be allowed to continue by the state?