[RangerScience]

Kiiiiinda but not really?

You're forgetting about the implied sub-selection (or lack thereof), which then needs to be re-applied to the situation over which the group has power.

Take random small town A containing subgroup B, which holds most seats of power in town A. This is the same as: Subgroup B, as a class, having power, within town A.

So let's rephrase: American men, as a class, have power in America.

Now, what happens if our sub-selection ISN'T a sub-selection, and is just "humanity"? Human men, as a class, have power in humanity.

This is backed up by leadership statistics.

Now, I think what you're trying to say is: Correlation of the "man" attribute with power is the not the same as the "man" attribute causing power".

Again, this kinda makes sense, but, AFAIK/IMHO, so long as the attribute in question is disproportionately shared by the people with power vs the distribution amongst the population, that attribute IS causing some degree of the power held.

[bjornstjerne]

Not really. What I was getting at was that social forces change over time. Certain members of the "man" class benefited from past social forces, not some innate powerful characteristic of the "man" class. So, it's wrong enact (and justify) policies to counteract that non-existent characteristic, like denying that class access to sex-segregated networking groups that are equivalent to those available to other classes.

Power usually goes to the classes who are most organized and cooperative. If you forbid cooperation, you eventually forbid (equal) power as well.