so apparently it only applies to companies located in the EU? not operating in the EU, since I'm in the EU and no button

I just cancelled the automatic payment from paypal. Should do the job. If I stop paying, then they can't shove their service down my throat and claim I should pay. That's the plan...

true but generally speaking one could say he who makes abundance for us all, deserves more.

We don’t live in a zero sum game though.

Perhaps. I never stated that we are. I was just pointing to a hypothetical world with limited resources, and what then would be most appropriate.

there’s no equivalence here.

So you would give menstrual products to people with a uterus but don't say anything about not giving menstrual products to people without a uterus?

But would you? If you do not, wouldn't that make you treat people unequally, in some sense?

sure, no one is denying that. I was just jumping in on specifics of how that would look like, for example, when giving certain items.

thats true, then I was wrong. I would however still very much bet my money on the hypothesis that it is.

well if you are a reliable source to yourself, I'd say:

Men have more muscle mass than women so they are stronger, particularly in the upper body

And for the other other, the rougher mental, I don't want to play mean or anything, but isn't the burden of proof more on your side? Yes it is certainly possible society molds certain characteristics of men, but that doesn't necessarily mean this particularly trait is - the rougher mental. Don't you agree, right now, in western society, men are less likely to admit their pain?

I’m a woman. I’m more likely to be harmed by a strange man than I am a woman. It’s the safer option for me.

Fair. But still, even if they look just as muscular, men are still generally stronger. Or at least if you if you couldn't judge it clearly because they have clothes on. Say you are solely interested in the one who is stronger, then you would still only choose the man, not the woman. Even if this scenario is niche, it's still possible and this precisely points out the crux of the problem. So in this scenario, can this be called unequality or morally wrong or whatever we started off?

EDIT: So arguments are prohibited in this sub? I just read that. What the hell.

I said bigger, not big.

you do have a point in the sense that if we live in a utopia, I think there is good reason to think that it shouldn't matter what choices people make, they all get the same 'reward'/financial outcome/etc.

You said:

If the world has the resources to allow it, then why should one person be punished for chasing their joy while another is rewarded?

Yes okay, but what if there are limited resources? Or a world that needs improvement? Isn't it then better to incentivize people to work hard to make our world of limited resources a world of abundance? If yes, then it means to give those a higher reward at the expense of those who made "other choices".

Are we now living in a world of limited resources / that needs improvement? If yes, then it would probably be justified to take from those who made "other choices"

why don't you give the idea some serious thought instead of weaseling your way out? To guide you more: Your only options are between a man and a woman who look equally muscular and you don't have a lot of time to ask around. It's noisy and you can only ask either one at a time, who do you ask? I'm OBVIOUSLY talking about those scenarios (even if rare...) where the relevant bit comes into play