obviously men don't all sit completely in one category and women in another. Some men will be brilliant at being SAHDs while some women will earn 5 times the average salary. On the whole, men tend to have better personality traits for business and career (less accommodating, more selfish, more confident), while women have personality traits suited more for child rearing (more accommodating, more nurturing, more giving).
Ok - so if the correlation between "xyz traits" and "sex" is so weak, what use is it to use them as a basis for anything (policy, pay, law etc)? What does it achieve to say "most women are good at empathy, so let's make sure we give the empathy job to a woman" if sex is a poor indicator of it? Wouldn't it be better to group people, regardless of sex, by their traits where appropriate, instead of using a very poor proxy?
I genuinely feel disadvantaged by being assumed to have the "opposite" (loosely speaking) skill set that I do. Who does this benefit? Genuine question - not rhetoric - who?