comment: >
  
  Sure, plenty of people disagree with me.
context: The reason why double standards based on gender are never okay is because they fail to account for the root cause of the issues they're covering.
  You say that a man can hit harder than a woman in general, so they gave the responsibility to exercise restraint. That's true and I generally agree, but that's not because of gender or sex, it's because one party has much more capacity for violence than the other.
  For instance, what is a very large man's responsibility ~~with~~when confronted by a very small man? Does the large man have a similar responsibility to exercise restraint? Why? Should a butch woman exercise restraint against a petite woman? 
  If you said no to any of those examples, your goal is not equality or even equity, it is sexism. >
  
  This exactly. Men shouldn’t be held to a different standard than women, rather the person with more power in the situation should be held to a different standard than the person with less power. Whether it be a strength imbalance, a power imbalance at the office, etc. >
  
  Would you agree that if you're advocating in favor of double standards between men and women you are also advocating against equal treatment of men and women by society? >
  
  I suppose, that in the type of scenarios that I described, yes I am advocating for different treatment. >
  
  Acknowledging that there are various definitions of "fair" if someone defines "fairness" between men and women as "equal treatment by society" (and likely the law a well), wouldn't that mean that to them double standards are not fair? >
  
  I don't really mean fair in that sense, I sorta overlooked that fair can also mean equality in a sense.
  I see how that's confusing, my apologies for the poorly worded title.
  I mean fair more so as it's acceptable or reasonable. >
  
  Wouldn't that just change my argument to say that some people define unequal treatment of men and women by society as unacceptable and unreasonable?