We can have sex-based pay. In the interest of equality, equal pay for equal work, we ensure that what really counts is sex-based differences. Why? Because there are sex-based differences that we disapprove of. That's (a).
(b) is something progressives sort of fought for. So to make one group feel less bad, let's go back to oppression.
(c) Make some "pink-collar jobs" higher in pay. Why? Because the government'll punish you otherwise. It's much better to work 30 hours a week and make the same amount as somebody working 40 hours a week. And to base that on what used to be called "sexism."
(d) We've seen this in collegiate sports. The result is not getting more women involved--you can only force women to do so much against their will before it stops looking like "freedom" and "equality"--but limiting the amount of men. "Freight shipments in the US fell by 35% last year, causing food shortages and shortages at nearly every store, because men were prohibited from working more hours than the women shippers."
If there's one thing that should have been learned by now, it's that government compulsion of private choices and lifestyles isn't a winning option. People will try to work against their government, and what you have isn't a government of the people but a government over the people.
This is the kind of stat that pro-active measures, within reason, should be taken to mitigate. Equal pay for the same work, for instance. But if I choose to be an engineer versus work in daycare, that has consequences. However, there's no reason to cookie-cut people to make them fit an ideology or preconceived outcome. It's one thing to say culture and biology should be resisted; it's another thing to stipulate that they mustn't exist.
= new reply since forum marked as read