And we are arguing that it's not relevant. Men are treated differently in our society, dicks have a different connotation, etc. This is a great example of how simple metaphors strip important nuance.
I am unsure what your argument is here. The liberal position here is, in a nutshell, that women's rights are treated poorly and should not be. It's a real stretch to say that means they should be treated as if they were men wearing dick hats because they think men are equal.
So you're argument is that because women are treated differently we should treat them diffently? You aren't advocating equeal treatment but for more unequal treatment.
Because "women's rights" are treated poorly, we should treat "women marching with pussy hats" differently than "men marching with dick hats".
Specifically women's rights around their reproductive organs, between access to abortion, classifying sanitary napkins or tampons as a necessary expense, or sexual assault of those organs.
If men had women in congress debating over making ejaculation without intent to conceive illegal, if men were payed less for the same work on average, if men had powerful people talking bragging about grabbing them by the dick whenever they wanted, etc, maybe then you would have a point.
But as it stands, you're twisting my words into a false equivalence.
Women's rights are treated poorly. Women should have equal rights and should be treated equally if you believe they are equals to men. Women marching with pussy hats represents a different phenomena than men in dick hats. For that to be equal treatment the context has to be equivalent. And it is not.
And there would be cries about vulgarity and "what about the children?!" along with it.