> A lack of social-security-paid maternity is not technically a law

What do you mean? It is a property of the legal system.

> looking at what laws explicit mention gender.

BTW, that's not a very good way to find legal discrimination. For example, suppose there was a country with no laws against rape (some Arab countries are not far from that). It doesn't mention sex, but women are raped by men far more than the other way around, or even (grown) men by other men. Such an absence is a clear legal discrimination against women (and probably children).

> Personally I don't see why the law don't just grant this to everyone

I don't know, as I'm not familiar with those laws and their goals, but you should always keep thinking about power. It's OK to treat men and women differently if it doesn't create a power disparity. The goal isn't to make women and men identical, but to allow them to have equal power.

> I have very little understanding for why the law can't just provide this service for everyone regardless of gender, except that government funding for victim of crimes support would have to be significant increased.

Again, I'm not sure, but my guess is that this is a "black lives matter" point, aimed to fix a discrepancy in reality. Laws are not written in a vacuum, and sometimes laws are aimed at specific people who are discriminated against at the time the law is written. One of the first things you learn when you study history is that a new law tells you a lot about changes in society, because people don't legislate against things that don't happen or they don't perceive as threats (the threats can be imaginary). The law is not the code for a simulation program; it is a set of steps for using the collective power of the stat to interact with social reality.

> Would you say there is currently a identifiable trend in changing cultural expectancy that society has on from female and male roles? If so, where would you say it points to?

Of course, and it seems pretty obvious to me. As recently as a few decades ago, women who put having children on hold to have careers were viewed as freaks. Just watch Mad Men.

> Society has just agreed that discrimination against nudists is acceptable

Nudists are not a social group just as chess players aren't, and it isn't a religion, either. It's OK to argue whether forbidding nude beaches is right or wrong, but it has nothing to do with the issue of burkas on the beach.

> Trying to repay bad blood from over 400 years is a recipe for war.

It's not "bad blood". Those are real effects, which are a major cause for current conditions. And where did you get 400 years? As recently as 50 years ago, there was a legal separation of blacks and whites in the US as well as overt economic discrimination.

> The historical cause is of lesser importance than the present need.

I agree. Fixing the wrongs isn't about the past, but about fixing the current effects of past deeds. If I steal your car so you can't get to work, giving it back isn't a matter of settling past issues, but correcting the problem of you not having a car because I stole it.

> Do you find that compatible with the successful abolishment of gender segregation in buses that the feminist movement fought for?

I am not familiar with that experiment or its goals.