Good point. The weird thing is, I don't know when people starting confusing the idea that the two sexes are equal in human worth - and therefore deserve equal human rights and equal opportunity - with the idea that the two sexes are the same. The feminism of the 1960s and 70s that I grew up with and have always hewed to was/is NOT about pretending there's no biological difference between the two sexes, it's about recognizing that one sex isn't inherently better or of more value in terms of overall worth.

Moreover, so much of feminism back then was based on the awareness that equality for girls and women meant making provisions for our females bodies, or that at least took into account the realities and social repercussions of having a female body - by, for example, obtaining abortion rights; making it illegal to fire girls & women from our jobs or kick us out of school for getting pregnant; campaigning to get health insurance plans to cover Pap smears, mammograms and birth control; winning the right to take maternity leave; building girls' and women's sports and allowing us to have PE classes on par with males; doing and lobbying for research & education on female health matters; removing the stigmas around menstruation, menopause and breastfeeding; fighting for changes in how the medical establishment views and handles childbirth so that labour and birth can be woman-centered and controlled; lobbying for fair allocation of facilities like toilets and locker rooms; bringing attention to, & trying to reduce, the high rates of sexual harassment, sexual assault and child sex abuse that males subject girls & women to simply because we are biologically female; setting up female-only spaces and services like rape refuges, domestic violence shelters & support groups & therapy/recovery programs where women could heal from injuries to our female bodies.

We used to use the analogy of beds. Lots of kids who share bedrooms sleep in twin beds of the same size that are on the same level, whilst other kids sleep in bunk beds. But the fact that some people like bunk beds does not mean it's not necessary to arrange all twin beds so one is on top, and one is on the bottom. Feminism back then wanted each sex to have its own twin bed of the same size (and cushiness) on the same level as the other, rather than one stacked on top of the other. But somehow it seems people started thinking everyone should all sleep in one bed together. This overlooked the fact that some kids are bigger than others, and are likely to take up more space and hog all the covers, and overlooking any and all need for any kind of boundaries. I've often wondered if the practice of families co-sleeping might be at fault here, LOL.

BTW, are people still really arguing that males across the board have higher IQs than females? IQ, which by its very definition is something that is measurable and tested for, has been around a long time - but I didn't think there was any credence to the notion that males have higher IQs than females. Scholastically, girls and women if given the same opportunities as boys and men, tend to outperform them.

Yes, sexists in the past just as now have long argued that women's brains or psychology means that across the board we aren't cut out for certain areas of study, kinds of thinking, or professions/work - but that's different from/to IQ, which is supposed to be a measure of overall intelligence.

Moreover, at some of the very same times in the past that some argued that male brains are superior to female ones, a lot of people took the equally sexist opposite view. Used to be, lots of people thought that girls & women are naturally smarter than boys, but we best downplay our intelligence so as to protect "the fragile male ego." In my own upbringing, there were constant double messages: adults praised me for being smart, clever and getting good grades, but also told me to "keep a lid on it" and sometimes to play dumb so as not to distress boys and make them feel bad about themsleves.

In the US, when girls and women were banned from certain educational institutions and fields of study outright, or were allowed in but only on the condition that our numbers be kept low, a main reason often cited was so that men wouldn't have to endure the shame and discomfort of being outdone by women. Coz their "fragile male egos" couldn't handle seeing that so many of the human beings of the sex class seen as inferior were much smarter than them. That's why in the early 20th century Stanford University decided to cap the number of women admitted as undergrads.. Originally, Stanford admitted the best students of both sexes who applied - but soon enough, that meant more and more of the student body ended up being female. To prevent female students from dominating in numbers and academic performance, a quota was established to keep female students at Stanford in the minority. And it was a woman, and supposedly a feminist one, Jane Stanford, who put the quota in place!

Also, I don't know if this is true or just an "old wives tale," but a lot of people have long claimed that insofar as the part of IQ that is heritable is concerned, mothers contribute more to it than than fathers. Most of the men I knew and dated who wanted children back in the day believed their best chance of having smart kids was to mate with a smart woman - and a main reason guys I dated, professors, doctors and others of both sexes often told me I should have lots of children was coz I was very smart, and thus would pass that on to my kids. In fact, I was often told during my reproductive years that I had an obligation or duty to have a big brood - not coz women are only or mainly fit for baby making, but coz the human race needs more people of high intelligence. I even got this sort of pressure from female gynecologists who were feminists!

Apparently there is some research out there supporting the idea that the heritable part of IQ comes more from mothers than from fathers.

Genes controlling cognition are more likely inherited from the mother than from the father, according to studies in genomics. Many of the alleles containing intelligence determinants are carried on the x-chromosome. Because women possess two copies of the x-chromosome while men carry only one, it is more likely for these alleles to be passed on to the children.

In fact, it could be that general cognitive ability comes only from the mother. Some studies on the genetics of intelligence have found that genes for advanced cognitive functions which are inherited from the father may be automatically deactivated. These genetic determinants are called conditioned genes.

https://www.familyeducation.com/is-intelligence-inherited-a-genetic-explanation

Again, I dunno if this is actually true. But the idea has been out there for a long time.

Sorry to have gone on at such length. I'm not disagreeing with what you said. I think you made an excellent point. I'm just expanding on your comment, which obviously jogged my memory and thinking.