Probably the worst example to illustrate a point that I could find

Just a reminder that inequitable ends do not necessitate inequitable processes. Not to justify human trafficking-- it is a truly horrible act-- but consider this article on CNN this morning.

"Males come with a premium price tag in China. During a videotaped confession, a woman caught trafficking children two years ago told police that boys can sell for up to $1,200, girls for just more than $200."

Presumably, there's no additional hurdle or advantage to targeting males instead of females. Families protect their children equally, and due to cultural norms, males are more highly sought after. As mentioned above, the price for male children is six times that of female children. This does not mandate inequity in the market for male children as relative to female children. (Again, not justifying human trafficking, but comparing one act of human trafficking to another does get past a significant moral hurdle when analyzing with such appalling behavior.) Neither do differences in male and female salaries, nor male and female athletic participation rates. Inequitable processes produce inequitable ends; the reverse does not necessarily hold.

This comes to mind after talking with TPS friend and colleague Pavel Yakovlev over the last few days about Title IX; he has a fantastic paper in the works that I look forward to sharing here in the (hopefully) near future.