[politicallines]

"If we don't help these girls - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of parasitic behavior - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?"

You don't see a problem with phrasing equality in that way?

[durzagott]

Are you suggesting there are zero behavioural differences between boys and girls?

[Lawtonfogle]

It seems that the post is suggesting the implications of the phrasing can be taken as offensive, and trying to give a different example to express the point.

To avoid gender, consider an example which uses race instead.

>It would help humanity to also give enough focus on black child development so that we could save their future, avoid the crimes they commit and their languishing in jails.

I've only switched one word, and while some may say it is not offensive, I could clearly foresee some people finding the underlying tone as offensive.

[politicallines]

Calling boys for future criminals and girls for future parasites is not going to help creating equality. It has nothing to do with "behavioural" differences from genes, and everything to do about sexism.

[FilterSweep]

That's exaggerating his position. It's not sexist to acknowledge differences between males and females.

[Lawtonfogle]

It is likely sexist to acknowledge differences as being biological in origin when they are sociological in origin. Of course, some differences are biological, but the outcome of how the biological differences result in different social trends is part sociological.

For an example of a difference which is sexist, imagine someone saying women are less fit for critical roles because they are more emotional, when in fact it is that our society works to repress male expression of emotions and both men and women are, at the core, emotional entities.