Would I ever waste your time by making a comment that has little bearing on the matter at hand?

Here’s how it relates: At the heart of the issue you about coed sports is the issue of fairness. Some people would argue that it is not fair (unjust) for you to keep a girl from doing activity X or job Y ONLY because of her gender. How to respond? Well suppose we posit the following principle of justice (conceived as fairness): ‘treat equals equally and unequals unequally’. I suppose that both egalitarians and complementarians (though not perhaps certain political philosophers) would agree with this Formal principle of justice. However they agree because this principle IS formal; that is, it doesn’t say what determines what is equal in any given circumstance. Hence, we need to add a material principle of justice to supplement the formal principle. Here’s where the disagreement takes place. The egalitarian, in a move much like that of the supreme court cited above, argues that because equality implies identity (in every morally significant quality or attribute, gender can never be a morally relevant factor in setting out a material principle of justice. Gender is much like baldness, weight, or race and not like, say, merit or need. Where does that leave the complementarian? Is gender a morally relevant quality or not? Presumably sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. For example, I suppose you would agree that it is when one is making the cuts for the college football team but isn’t when one is choosing which patient in need of a transplant to give an organ. If so, what is the principle that allows you to determine when gender is morally significant and when it isn’t?