Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts

There are many responses I have to Pro's primary argument, but I will save the majority of them for the next round. However, I would like to emphasise that the debate topic Pro proposed was 'Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts'. She chose to propose this, rather than 'Birth sex should not be a factor in marriage contracts', and therefore it is the point I will argue. Men and women have many biological differences. Men, for instance, are unable to become pregnant, do not have ovaries, and are therefore unable to ovulate. Meanwhile, women are unable to inseminate, or, if future medical technology allows for the fertilization of an egg with another egg, father a boy. They are, on average, shorter by 11cm [1], have levels of testosterone on average 14 times lower than men [2], and have a normal body fat percentage of 25% as compared to 15% for men. [3] All these things mean that the average woman is incapable of doing many of the things that the average man can, primarily those related to strength - heavy lifting, opening particularly stiff jam jars, replacing said jam jars on the top shelf of the cupboard. All these things said, I believe that in many cases, a legal contract made between two parties, one of whom is a woman, would be inappropriate to also make with a man, and vice versa. A legal contract outlines the rights and responsibilities of each party, and if one of those parties is unable to for-fill the responsibilities in the contract because of their gender, that is an unfair contract for that party. Take the case of a recent change to law in the European Union with regards to insurance policy. It was recently decided by the European Court of Justice that gender may not be used as a factor when calculating insurance premiums. [4] Previously, car insurance costs for young men were far higher than those for young women, and with good reason - men are 70% more likely to be killed in a serious car accident, with 29,722 male drivers being involved in fatal car accidents, and only 12,747 female drivers. [5] It is therefore common sense for insurance companies to charge young men, such as myself, a higher insurance premium, as they are a much higher risk for the company, in the same way experienced drivers should be charged lower amounts than new drivers. But because it has been decided that gender is no longer allowed to be factored into this particular kind of legal contract, we have an absurd situation where men - who generally do 60-65% more driving than women [5] - are paying the same as women. It is generally thought that 'sex equality' is something that benefits women, but in this case, it actually benefits men - women are being made to pay for their risk, because sex is not allowed to be a factor. All this being said, I would like to come to the topic of marriage. This is currently a very heated topic for debate in the United States, and the main reason for this is that marriage has separate parts - it is both a legal contract and a religious institution. Here in the United Kingdom, where I am from, same-sex marriage is still illegal, but same-sex couples may enter into a civil union, which has all the legal consequences of marriage. [6] While the contract for a civil partnership and a marriage may be very similar, it is different in some ways, because of the gender of the persons involved. As marriage is a religious institution, laws made with regards to same-sex marriage may have consequence on churches. In the Qur'an and the Bible, homosexuality is described as a sin - including in the new testament. [7] It would be unfair to force churches and mosques to marry those that they believe are living in sin, regardless of the accuracy of views. Finally, some questions: 1. If all legal contracts should not be defined by gender in any way, do you believe that, when a stripper is ordered for a stag/hen party, there should be an equal likelihood of a man or a woman turning up? Should specification of gender be illegal in the verbal, but still legal, contract? 2. Should the father and the mother of a newborn get equal paid time off work, assuming they work in the same job in the same place? 3. When a man and a woman are walking together towards a heavy, closed door, should one of them open it and hold it for the other? If so, which one? I look forward to your rebuttals :) [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com... and http://www.wolframalpha.com... [2] http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.medicinenet.com... [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5] http://www.car-accidents.com... [6] http://www.direct.gov.uk... [7] Qur'an - 26:165-167, Bible - Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27