Your argument suffers several flaws. First of all you are assuming that equality currently exists, and therefore anything that might have show a bias is inherently unequal. If your assumption were true, you'd have a point. However, it is not true: there are lots of places where imbalance exists.
Second you are assuming that the imbalances are based on some inherent gender differences (in a previous point you make some claim about "socialness"). This point is somewhat contentious, and not well evidenced (that is to say, there is at least as much evidence for as against such points), or just plain shown to be false. If you can show a preponderance of agreement in facts, I will change my position. Evidence required for such.
Third, your claims that, corrective actions to an existing imbalance are the same as those same actions when furthering an imbalance or creating an imbalance. This is true in the pedantic sense - the actions are the same. However, the consequences and motivation for the actions must be taken into account. If the motive is to correct an imbalance, and the consequence is imbalance correction, then different considerations must be made. If I use a scalpel to remove someone's kidney, the circumstances surrounding the action matter a lot - as a surgeon performing a transplant it's ok, as a psychopath getting his jollies it isn't.
Finally you are using a slightly different definition of sexism than many. You will argue till you're breathless, use annoying semantic pedantry, general point missing, and other disingenuous BS to try and counter me, but here it is: the sexism people are talking about is systemic, the fact that statistically speaking, women are faced with an imbalance that seems only to apply because of gender. The sexism you are using is "acknowledges gender in actions". They are different and have different implications. Too bad you keep demonstrating a basic choice to ignore things like implication, multi-step reasoning, and acknowledgement of definitions of words that you don't like.
Second you are assuming that the imbalances are based on some inherent gender differences (in a previous point you make some claim about "socialness"). This point is somewhat contentious, and not well evidenced (that is to say, there is at least as much evidence for as against such points), or just plain shown to be false. If you can show a preponderance of agreement in facts, I will change my position. Evidence required for such.
Third, your claims that, corrective actions to an existing imbalance are the same as those same actions when furthering an imbalance or creating an imbalance. This is true in the pedantic sense - the actions are the same. However, the consequences and motivation for the actions must be taken into account. If the motive is to correct an imbalance, and the consequence is imbalance correction, then different considerations must be made. If I use a scalpel to remove someone's kidney, the circumstances surrounding the action matter a lot - as a surgeon performing a transplant it's ok, as a psychopath getting his jollies it isn't.
Finally you are using a slightly different definition of sexism than many. You will argue till you're breathless, use annoying semantic pedantry, general point missing, and other disingenuous BS to try and counter me, but here it is: the sexism people are talking about is systemic, the fact that statistically speaking, women are faced with an imbalance that seems only to apply because of gender. The sexism you are using is "acknowledges gender in actions". They are different and have different implications. Too bad you keep demonstrating a basic choice to ignore things like implication, multi-step reasoning, and acknowledgement of definitions of words that you don't like.