[unalone]

This is silly logic.

If you were really treating women equally to men, you wouldn't follow a "what's good for one is good for the other" policy. You'd accept that the norms and behaviors of each gender should be held in equal regard, and adapt your own behavior to the person or group of people you're talking with. Acknowledging, in other words, that women have as much right to be in the workplace as men, rather than treating their actions as somehow foreign or alien to the "acceptable" male norms.

I mean, your simple and straightforward logic is the logic that four-year-old boys use when they want to punch girls on the playground and don't feel like being courteous.

[claudius]

This is very non-silly logic. Why should I care about your chromosome configuration or sexual identification? It is not my business, and I expect you to respect that. Hence it is absolutely obvious to treat men and women equally and not adapt one’s greetings procedures to the gender of the other person.

After all, punching girls is exactly as appropriate as punching guys.

[unalone]

If you think that treating genders equally has nothing to do with accepting variations in social norms, then you're missing pretty much the whole purpose of the "treat women equally to men" thing.

Gender inequality is almost wholly a social problem, not a biological one. And

[illuminate]

I don't see gender-neutrality as terrible for the workplace, even if I am a hugger by default.